Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to RCE received August 05, 2025. Claims 1-14 are pending examination.
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.
2. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “acquiring a part of a global map representing object positions, generating a local map”.
Claims 1 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitation of acquiring, generating and updating, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by the mind using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processing device” and “image capturing device” in claims 1 and 12, “system”, “server” and “circuitry” in claim 14, and “non-transitory computer readable medium,” and “image capturing device” in claim 13, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person would be able to mentally generate a map using images of objects in an area.
Claims 1 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “acquiring a part of a global map representing object positions, generating a local map”.
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processing device” and “image capturing device” in claims 1 and 12, “system”, “server” and “circuitry” in claim 14, and “non-transitory computer readable medium,” and “image capturing device” in claim 13 in the context of this claim encompasses the user to mentally generate a map using images of objects in an area.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements- “a processing device” and “image capturing device” in claims 1 and 12, “system”, “server” and “circuitry” in claim 14, and “non-transitory computer readable medium,” and “image capturing device” in claim 13 to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of generating local map) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1 and 12-14 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In particular, the claims recite additional elements of capturing image of objects. This capturing step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering (gathering image information), which is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., generally gathering data that is to be used to determine a locations of objects within an area). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 12-14 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Finally, regarding the additional element of transmitting local data to a server device, this additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly insignificant post-solution activity directed transmitting a signal based on the result of transforming map information.
As drafted, “transmitting the local data’, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses merely transmitting or generating information (e.g., transmitting/outputting a signal). 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. Therefore, claims 1 and 12-14 are directed to an abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,970. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-13 of patent # 9,014,970 contain every element of claims 1-14 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 1-14 of the instant application.
4. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,449,023. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-20 of patent # 9,449,023 contain every element of claims 1-14 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 1-14 of the instant application.
5. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,727,580. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-13 of patent # 9,727,580 contain every element of claims 1-14 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 1-14 of the instant application.
6. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,083,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-18 of patent # 10,083,188 contain every element of claims 1-14 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 1-14 of the instant application.
7. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,599,687. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-19 of patent # 10,599,687 contain every element of claims 1-14 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 1-14 of the instant application.
8. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,762,887. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-23 of patent # 11,762,887 contain every element of claims 1-14 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 1-14 of the instant application.
9. The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 1-14.
10. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance that claims recite the combination of additional elements of (1) "an imaging device configured to capture an image of objects," (2) "circuitry configured to generate local data based on the image captured by the imaging device, wherein the local data includes at least the positions of the objects," (3) "transmit the local data to a server device," and (4) "the global map is generated based on the generated local data transmitted to the server device and updated by replacing the positions of the objects in the global map with the positions of the objects in the local data.
In response, an imaging device configured to capture an image is considered to be a generic computer that collects information. The capturing step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering (gathering image information), which is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., generally gathering data that is to be used to determine a locations of objects within an area). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In addition, generate local data based on the image captured is a mental step that can be performed by a human mind. A human can look at an image and identify objects such as positions of objects in an image. For example, by looking at an image, a human can recognize a bird on a tree or a bicycle on a side walk.
With regards to "transmit the local data to a server device", the additional element of transmitting local data to a server device, this additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly insignificant post-solution activity directed transmitting a signal based on the result of transforming map information. “transmitting the local data’, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses merely transmitting or generating information (e.g., transmitting/outputting a signal). 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.
Finally, with regards to "the global map is generated based on the generated local data transmitted to the server device and updated by replacing the positions of the objects in the global map with the positions of the objects in the local data”, the claims do not recite generating a global map. The claims simply acquire a global map wherein the global map is generated based on the generated local data transmitted to the server device. In other words, the claim points out how the global map was generated before being acquired but does not actually generate the global map. Therefore, the way in which the global map was generated is irrelevant to whether the claims are abstract since the claims do not generate the global map.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669