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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in application 18/231,038 and are examined as such below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 1-10 are directed toward a process (method). Claims 11-15 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Claims 16-20 are directed toward a computer program product having computer-readable tangible storage media (article of manufacture). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 11 and 16 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of data analysis (mathematical modeling for localization).
Regarding independent claims 1, 11 and 16, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A processor-implemented method (computer system and computer program product) performed by a computing system of a server that communicates with a plurality of devices over a data network, each device having one or more sensors and maintaining a local map in a local coordinate frame, the method comprising:
receiving, by the computing system, a localisation request, wherein the localisation request includes sensor data associated with a device; [Receiving/collecting data (information gathering) - Generally considered a conventional, generic computing step/ abstract concept, when not tied to a specific, non-conventional improvement.]
determining, by the computing system, one or more localisation nodes from a global map based on the sensor data, the global map representing locations in a global coordinate frame; [Mental process or Mathematical algorithm (calculation/ data association / matching observed data to a stored data structure) - this step performs a, computational "lookup" or "classification" that is done using conventional techniques]
generating, by the computing system, localisation data based on an aggregation of the one or more localisation nodes, the localisation data including a global pose of the first device in the global coordinate frame; and [Mathematical algorithm - mathematical calculation of position (pose estimation) and data aggregation. The core algorithm (calculating global pose). The specification fails to explain how this specific aggregation of nodes improves upon traditional localization methods (e.g., increasing accuracy, reducing noise, faster processing)]
providing, by the computing system over the data network to the device, the localisation data to be combined with the local map of the device, to facilitate a localisation process for the device. [Transmitting data (communication) and updating a database/map - Generally considered a conventional, generic computing step.]
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 11 and 16 are directed to the abstract idea of Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)); and Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)).
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 1, 11 and 16 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claims 1, 11 and 16.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “processor”, a “computer system”, a “server”, a “network”, one or more “device(s)”, and one or more “sensor(s)”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 1-20 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “processor”, a “computer system”, a “server”, a “network”, one or more “device(s)”, and one or more “sensor(s)”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 11 and 16 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 11 and 16; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Double Patenting
The rejection of Claims 1-20, on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,761,766 B2, is withdrawn due to Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ventura et al. (J. Ventura, C. Arth, G. Reitmayr and D. Schmalstieg, "Global Localization from Monocular SLAM on a Mobile Phone," in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 531-539, April 2014.)
As per independent Claims 1, 11, and 16, Ventura discloses a computer- implemented method performed by a computing system of a server that communicates with a plurality of devices over a data network, each device having one or more sensors and maintaining a local map in a local coordinate frame, the method (a system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations) (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed, cause a computing system to perform operations) comprising (See at least Pg. 533, System Overview; Pg.535, Server Design):
receiving, by the computing system, a localization request, wherein the localization request includes sensor data associated with a device; determining, by the computing system, one or more localization nodes (landmarks) from a global map based on the sensor data, the global map representing locations in a global coordinate frame (See at least Pgs. 533-534);
generating, by the computing system, localization data based on an aggregation of the one or more localization nodes (landmarks), the localisation data including a global pose of the first device in the global coordinate frame; and providing, by the computing system over the data network to the device, the localization data to be combined with the local map of the device to facilitate a localization process for the device (See at least Pgs. 533-536).
As per Claims 2 (1), 12 (11), and 17 (16), Ventura discloses wherein determining the one or more localization nodes from the global map comprises: determining, by the computing system, a location estimate associated with the localization request; and performing, by the computing system, a search of localization nodes within a threshold proximity of the location estimate for the one or more localization nodes (landmarks) (See at least Pgs. 533-536).
As per Claims 3 (2), 13 (12), and 18 (17), Ventura discloses wherein performing the search of localization nodes comprises: extracting, by the computing system, visual signatures from the sensor data; and determining, by the computing system, the one or more localization nodes based on the visual signatures, wherein the one or more localization nodes (landmarks) are associated with signatures that satisfy a threshold similarity with the visual signatures (See at least Pgs. 533-536).
As per Claim 4 (1), 14 (11), and 19 (16), Ventura discloses generating, by the computing system, a new localization node in the global map based on the sensor data; and updating, by the computing system, the global map based on the new localization node (See at least Pgs. 533-536).
As per Claim 5 (4), 15 (14), and 20 (19), Ventura discloses wherein updating the global map comprises: determining, by the computing system, the new localization node has a same position as a localization node in the global map; and linking, by the computing system, the new localization node with the localization node in the global map (See at least Pgs. 533-536).
As per Claim 6 (4), Ventura discloses wherein updating the global map comprises: determining, by the computing system, the new localization node has a position outside the global map; and extending, by the computing system, the global map based on the new localization node (See at least Pgs. 533-536).
As per Claim 7 (4), Ventura discloses wherein updating the global map is based on a determination that a threshold number of new localization nodes have been generated for the global map (See at least Pgs. 533-536).
As per Claim 8 (1), Ventura discloses wherein the aggregation of the one or more localization nodes includes a global pose of the device determined based on the one or more localization nodes (See at least Pgs. 533-536).
As per Claim 9 (1), Ventura discloses wherein the global map includes links between localization nodes in the global map, wherein the links include relative position differences and relative rotation differences between positions of the localization nodes (See at least Pgs. 533-536).
As per Claim 10 (1), Ventura discloses wherein each of the one or more localization nodes includes at least one of: a picture, a position of a visual feature, a depth map, a three-dimensional point cloud, and metadata for a location (See at least Pgs. 533-534).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/5/2026, with respect to Claims 1-20, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review these documents before submitting any amendments.
Chen et al. (US 2022/0205783 A1) – Discloses a high-definition map system that receives sensor data from vehicles travelling along routes and combines the data to generate a high definition map for use in driving vehicles, for example, for guiding autonomous vehicles (See at least Figs.1 and 36; Para 0054; and Para 0213).
Eade et al. (US 9,910,444 B2) – Discloses methods and apparatus that use a visual sensor and dead reckoning sensors to process Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM). These techniques can be used in robot navigation. Advantageously, such visual techniques can be used to autonomously generate and update a map. (See at least C15L18-31; C20 L28-49; and C29L31-47).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
March 11, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629