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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, applicant argues “to address these technical challenges, the system performs sequence of operations such as…” (page 11-12). Applicant further argues “ it is clear that the limitations of steps 1-9 [referred to the sequence of operations] has a practical application/practical implementation i.e., using LiDAR just for capturing the second set of images associated with the reference building makes the system cost efficient, which is further used to perform navigation related functions. However, this is not persuasive, as this is not a “technological process” or a “technical problem.” “receiving” data, “storing” data and “providing data” is a routine process in computers and is implemented in the claim by a general-purpose computer in a conventional way. The rest of the claim beyond “receiving” data, “storing” data and “providing data” is an entirely abstract idea. There is no “technological improvement” even if applying the abstract idea somehow makes generating mapping data easier, when the mapping data analysis and creation is an entirely abstract idea. Even if this can be done on a computer with greater speed or efficiency than previously, this does not render the claim eligible. The courts have consistently held that speeding up an abstract mental/math process to be faster than a human can perform does not provide eligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; DealerTrack, 674 F.3d at 1333; Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (rejecting argument that “humans could not mentally engage in the ‘same claimed process’ because they could not perform ‘nanosecond comparisons’ and aggregate ‘result values with huge numbers of polls and members’”); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding claims abstract where “[t]he only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task”). Details analysis is provided below.
The rejection of claims 13 and 20 are maintained for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification is silent to “provide the improved building data to a navigation device to perform navigation related functions”.
Dependent claims are being rejected as depending from rejection of parent claims.
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, 7-15 and 17-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because it does not fall within four category of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C 101 (Process, machine manufacture or composition of matter).
101 analysis:
STEP 1:
Claims 1, 13 and 20 subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
STEP 2A, PRONG l (Claim 1):
Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Limitation recites:
(a) receive a first set of images of a single reference building from an aerial or satellite-based imaging device;
(b) receive a second set of images of the single reference building from a ground-level imaging device, wherein the ground-level imaging device comprises a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system;
(c) identify, from the first set of images, geographical coordinates of a roof of the single reference building;
(d) determine a first base position of the single reference building based on the identified geographical coordinates of the roof, wherein the first base position of the single reference building is inaccurate;
(e) determine a second base position of the reference building based on the second set of images;
(f) determine a first set of building values associated with the reference building based on at least a distance between the determined first base position and the determined second base position , wherein the first set of building values includes at least a shifting value and an angular shifting position associated with the reference building;
(g) calculate a second set of building values for each of the plurality of buildings present within a predefined area of the reference building, based on the determined first set of building values, and a respective determined height of each of the plurality of buildings;
(h) and improve the building data by updating geographical base coordinates associated with each of the plurality of buildings stored in a map database, based on the calculated second set of building values
(i) provide the improved building data to a navigation device to perform navigation related functions
For limitation (c), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation covers performance of mathematical calculations. For example, “identify, from the first set of images, geographical coordinates of a roof” merely measure a geographical coordinate of the roof; for example, receiving image of the roof using google map by entering the property address; then by selecting the points coordinate of the proof on the image, that will allow to calculate the roof geographical coordinates based on mathematical functions (c).
Similarly, limitation (d) illustrate mathematical calculation of the base of property/building based on the geographical coordinates of the roof; noted, amended limitation “wherein the first base position of the single reference building is inaccurate” recite mental process, for example, one can mentally make a judgment whether the base position of the reference building is incorrect or not.
For limitation (e), determining the base position based on images, are simply mathematical calculation.
For limitation (f), another mathematical calculation being performed; calculating to produce the set of values based on the distance between base positions; “the angular shifting position, a shifting value and an angular shifting position” are merely the result of such calculation.
Further, limitation (g) also illustrate the mathematical calculations.
For limitation (h), this merely a mental process that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’). This generic “improving” of the data can be considered a mental process based on the BRI as a form of observation, evaluation, or judgement of the “building data” being more correct/accurate. Note as in [0042] of the specification “The term "building data" may include information such as geographical coordinates of base of the buildings. For example, the building data may include the geographical coordinates of a position of the base of the plurality of buildings. The building data may further include information, such as height data of the plurality of buildings, geometrical information of the plurality of buildings, digital representation of the plurality of buildings and so forth.” In that sense, “improving” the building data is merely recognizing the coordinates or height as calculated are more accurate than some previous data, thus one can do this mentally.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2 (Claim 1):
Limitations (a), (b) and (i) are merely insignificant extra-solution as mere data gathering/outputting. The additional limitations “non-transitory memory”, “processor” describe generic computer components, akin to adding the word "apply it" in connection with the abstract idea.
Further noted, for limitation (i) “provide the improved building data to a navigation device to perform navigation related functions” beyond being insignificant extra-solution activity this is also a form of merely “apply it” under MPEP 2106.05(f). Particularly, this is in line with MPEP 2106.05(f) (1), “the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Nothing in the claim explains how the navigation device “perform[s] navigation related function” nor how the “improved building data” is improving the performance of the navigation. As claimed, this still encompasses someone doing all the analysis mentally or by math, and merely providing that to a navigation device to use – which is not an improvement to the functioning of the navigation device itself.
STEP 2B (Claim 1): Under step 2B, the identification of additional elements from Step 2A Prong Two is carried over, and the conclusion from Step 2A Prong Two that the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f) is also carried over. Therefore, none of the additional elements provide significantly more. Viewing the additional elements in combination and taking the claim as a whole nothing changes this conclusion. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 13 and 20 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-15 and 17-19 are dependent on their respective parent claims 1 and 13 respectively and include all the limitations of these claims; these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus the claims are direct to abstract idea.
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 KEN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/KEN HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168