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 .
Applicant cancelled claim 11 and added claims 12-20.
Response to Arguments
3.1. Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), filed 2/18/26, with respect to claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of claims 1-10 has been withdrawn.
3.2. Applicant's arguments, see applicant’s remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101, filed 2/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues features and technical advantages that are not recited in the claim. Specifically, the applicant asserts that the claimed “transmission frequency control circuitry” provides a technical improvement by reducing communication load, adaptively adjusting transmission intervals (e.g., once every 10 minutes, once per hour, etc.), and limiting transmission to data differing from predicted results. However, such details are absent from the claim language, which merely recites determining a transmission frequency “based on a degree of stability” without specifying how the stability is computed, how the transmission frequency is adjusted in a technically meaningful way, or how much adjustment concretely improves bandwidth usage, network efficiency, or device operation.
The Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mathematical concept or mental process but instead recite a specific technical solution for controlling data transmission.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the claims recite obtaining measurement data, determining whether a stationary object is present, and determining a transmission frequency based on a degree of stability, which constitute data analysis and decision-making processes. Such operations fall within the abstract idea groupings of mental processes and mathematical concepts. The recitation of “circuitry” performing these functions does not alter the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter, as the circuitry is described functionally without any specific technical implementation (i.e., not structurally defined).
The Applicant argues that the claims solve a technical problem of excessive communication load and server processing burden associated with transmitting measurement data.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the claims do not recite limitations that reflect this alleged technical improvement. While the specification may describe reducing communication load or server burden, the claims merely recite determining a transmission frequency based on a degree of stability without specifying how such determination improves bandwidth usage or system performance. It is well established that the claim must recite the improvement itself, not merely and intended result or advantage described in the specification (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)).
The Applicant argues that adaptive transmission frequency based on stability improves network and computer functionality.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the claim does not recite any specific adaptive mechanism, algorithm, or technical implementation that achieves such improvement. The claim broadly recites determining a transmission frequency “based on a degree of stability”, which is a result-oriented language that does not impose a meaningful technological limitation. Without how the transmission frequency is concretely adjusted, the claim fails to reflect a specific improvement to communication systems.
The Applicant argues that the system limits transmission to measurement results that rather differ from predicted results, thereby suppressing data volume.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because this limitation is not recited in the claim. The claim does not include any feature relating to prediction, comparison with predicted values, or selective transmission based on differences. Arguments relying on features disclosed only in the specification cannot establish eligibility, as the analysis must be based on the claim language itself (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
The Applicant argues that the acquisition circuitry is not insignificant extra-solution activity when considered as part of an integrated system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the acquisition circuitry merely performs the generic function of obtaining measurement data, which constitutes data gathering. Data collection, even when considered as part of a system, is typically regarded as insignificant extra-solution activity when it does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. The additional circuitries similarly perform generic data processing and control functions without reciting a specific technological improvement.
The Applicant argues that the claim is tied to the physical characteristics of the measurement environment and therefore constitutes a practical application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the recited measurement device and data collection device merely provide a technological environment in which the abstract idea is applied. The claim does not recite any improvement to the measurement device, sensing technique, or communication protocol. Limiting an abstract idea to a particular technology environment does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The Applicant argues that the claim recites a specific technical implementation that improves data transmission efficiency.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the claim does not recite any specific mechanism, algorithm, or architecture that achieves improved efficiency. Instead, the claim is drafted at a high level of abstraction and recites only the desired result of adjusting transmission frequency based on stability. Such functional, result-oriented language does not constitute a concrete technological improvement but rather amounts to instructions to apply an abstract idea using generic components.
The Applicant argues that the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the claim, as drafted, remains directed to an abstract idea and does not include additional elements that impose a meaningful limit on that data. The alleged improvements are not reflected in the clam language, and the recited elements are generic and conventional. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
The Applicant further argues that claim 2 recites a “transmission circuitry” that differentially transmits measurement data, i.e., transmitting data at a controlled frequency for stationary objects and immediately transmitting data for non-stationary objects, and that such differential treatment constitutes a specific technical implementation for efficient data transmission.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because, although claim 2 recites different transmission conditions, the claim still defines these operations at a high level of abstraction. The limitation merely distinguishes between two categories of data (stationary vs. non-stationary) and applies different transmission timing, which constitutes a form of data evaluation and conditional decision-making. The claim does not recite any specific algorithm, protocol, or mechanism for performing this differential transmission in a manner that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional limitation does not remove the claim from the abstract idea grouping under Step 2A, Prong One.
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 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process (claim 9, a method) or a machine (claim 1, a processing device) or a manufacture (claim 10, a non-transitory computer readable medium), which are statutory categories.
4.1 However, evaluating claim 1, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mathematical relationship/mental process. The limitations include:
a determination circuitry configured to determine, for the each measurement point, whether or not an assumed stationary object is measured, based on the measurement result; and a transmission frequency control circuitry configured to determine transmission frequency of transmitting, to a data collection device, the measurement result of a measurement point at which it is determined that the assumed stationary object is measured, based on a degree of stability of measurement of the assumed stationary object at the measurement point.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of “an acquisition circuitry configured to obtain a measurement result for each measurement point corresponding to a measurement direction by a measurement device for performing measurement from a fixed position” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data that is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a particular practical application. The act of data gathering is considered insufficient to elevate the claim to a practical application.
Although the claim mentions physical components (measuring device, fixed position), these elements are used only as data sources for data gathering, not in a way that improves the operation of the device itself.
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 13-20 do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rationale as in claim
1.
Claim 12 is considered eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Although claim 12 include abstract ideas, claim 12 also recite additional elements
such as “wherein the measurement device is a LiDAR configured to emit pulse lasers while changing an irradiation direction, and to measure a distance to an object based on a response delay time of a received reflected light”. The inclusion of these additional elements integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application that effects a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 distinguish over the prior art of record because the closest
prior art Wheeler et al. (Pub. No. US 20200081134) discloses validating GNSS location data by determining a confidence score based on comparison between (i) a first velocity derived from GNSS location data (and an associated variance) and (ii) a second velocity derived from additional sensor data such as IMU/camera/Lidar, using either a probabilistic model (e.g., Gaussian) or trained machine learning model (see Abstract, ¶¶ [0005]-[0007], [0073]-[0077], [0084]-[0087], [0090]-[0099], and [0101]-[0106]). However, Wheeler et al. fails to anticipate or render obvious an information processing device comprising: a transmission frequency control unit configured to determine transmission frequency of transmitting, to a data collection device, the measurement result of a measurement point at which it is determined that the assumed stationary object is measured, based on a degree of stability of measurement of the assumed stationary object at the measurement point, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
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.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights