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 .
The current application filed on 03/13/2024.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method for navigating in environments comprising dynamic objects, the method comprising:
dividing a global map into at least a first static map and a first dynamic map, the first dynamic map comprising an inspection target;
using the global map as a reference map and a set of external data, which has been obtained from a manufacturing system, to create a real-time global map;
dividing the real-time global map to generate a second static map and a second dynamic map, the second dynamic map comprising a target area;
using the second static map to estimate an absolute mobile device position;
using the second dynamic map to estimate a relative mobile device position; and
aligning the absolute mobile device position and the relative mobile device position to generate a combined map that represents an adjusted real-time global map in which the second dynamic map is aligned with the second static map.
Claim 12. A navigation system for environments comprising dynamic objects, the system comprising:
a map management system configured to:
divide a global map into at least a first static map and a first dynamic map, the first dynamic map comprising an inspection target;
using the global map as a reference map and a set of external data, which has been obtained from a manufacturing system, to create a real-time global map; and
divide the real-time global map to generate a second static map and a second dynamic map, the second dynamic map comprising a target area;
a mobile robot control unit configured to:
use the second static map to estimate an absolute mobile device position; and
use the second dynamic map to estimate a relative mobile device position;
an external system that, in response to being queried, provides the set of external data to the map management system; and
a robot that configured to align the absolute mobile device position and the relative mobile device position to generate a combined map that represents an adjusted real-time global map in which the second dynamic map is aligned with the second static map.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a method and system including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be b) mental processes which can “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the bolded limitation of “dividing a global map …: using the global map …; dividing the real-time global map …: using the second static map …; using the second dynamic map …; and aligning the absolute mobile device position …”. This limitation, as drafted, are simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of by “a map management system” and “a mobile robot control unit”. That is, other than reciting by “a map management system” and “a mobile robot control unit” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a map management system” and “a mobile robot control unit” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple aligning. The mere nominal recitation of by the “a map management system” and “a mobile robot control unit” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception 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 judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of “a map management system” and “a mobile robot control unit” and steps of “dividing a global map …: using the global map …; dividing the real-time global map …: using the second static map …; using the second dynamic map …; and aligning the absolute mobile device position …” as general means of gathering data for using in the aligning step, and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. “a map management system” and “a mobile robot control unit” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose controlling a robot, i.e. a generic computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites those autonomous mobile robots in logistics, warehouse operation and construction for performing tasks, capable of quadrupedal movement and capable of collaboration with humans. The robots perform task such as product inspections and environmental surveillance in fields using existed Map, creating Map and/or updating Map. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere dividing and using of Map data are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-11 & 13-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 & 12.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 cites:
“Dividing a global map into ... a first static map and a first dynamic map … comprising an inspection target” is indefinite. The claim fails to define how a global map is obtained and how and what manner “an inspection target” is recognized?
“using the global map …and a set of external data …” is indefinite cause “a set of external data” is not defined.
Claim 12 has same issue above.
Claims 2-11 & 13-20 depend upon rejected claims 1 & 12 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoroeter (20230121226) in view of Vitzrabin (20250216855).
With regard to claims 1, Schoroeter discloses a method for navigating in environments comprising dynamic objects, the method comprising:
dividing a global map into at least a first static map and a first dynamic map, the first dynamic map comprising an inspection target (HP map 510 includes a landmark map (as a static map) and occupancy map (dynamic map), see [0075]-[0076]+);
using the global map as a reference map and a set of external data, which has been obtained from a manufacturing system, to create a real-time global map (a map update module 420 updates previously computed HD map data by receiving recent information form vehicles surrounding, see [0074]+);
dividing the real-time global map to generate a second static map and a second dynamic map, the second dynamic map comprising a target area (see [0076]+);
using the second static map to estimate an absolute mobile device position; using the second dynamic map to estimate a relative mobile device position (determines its current location in the HD map, determine the features on the road relative to the autonomous vehicle’s position, see [0027]+ & [0061]+);
Schoroeter fails to teach a robot that configured to align the absolute mobile device position and the relative mobile device position to generate a combined map that represents an adjusted real-time global map in which the second dynamic map is aligned with the second static map.
Vitzrabin discloses a system for map regeneration of an environment (see the abstract). The system includes robots (AMRs) which map the area until it is able to match an area to the current global map of the environment (see [0025]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Schoroeter by including robots which map the area until it is able to match an area to the current global map of the environment as taught by Vitzrabin for determining the robots’ locations accuracy.
With regard to claim 2, Schoroeter teaches that the method according to claim 1, further comprising using the combined map to autonomously update a navigation path associated with the target area, (see [0087]+).
With regard to claim 3, Schoroeter teaches that the method according to claim 1, further comprising using at least one of the absolute mobile device positions, the relative mobile device position, or the combined map to perform at least one of an inspection task or a navigation task (see [0065]+).
With regard to claim 4, Schoroeter teaches that the method according to claim 1, wherein the global map is a 3D map that has been obtained by using sensor data comprising point cloud data (see [0099]+).
With regard to claim 5, Vitzrabin teaches that the method according to claim 1, wherein the set of external data comprises data received from a manufacturing execution system and reflects environmental information, see [0018]+).
With regard to claim 6, Vitzrabin teaches that the method according to claim 5, further comprising receiving at least one of a signal, a file, or an environmental state (see [0013]+)
With regard to claim 7, Vitzrabin teaches that the method according to claim 5, wherein the environmental information comprises status information related to a set of objects (see [0020]+).
With regard to claim 8, Vitzrabin teaches that the method according to claim 7, wherein the status information comprises at least one of a position or presence of an object in the set of objects (see [0021]+).
With regard to claim 9, Vitzrabin teaches that the method according to claim 1, wherein the first static map is associated with a different time than the first dynamic map (see [0020]-[0021]+).
With regard to claim 10, Vitzrabin teaches that the method according to claim 1, further comprising assigning at least one of an identifier or a keyword to at least one of the target area or an object associated with the target area (recognizes the environment, and beginning mapping the environment from its known area, see [0021]+).
With regard to claim 11, Schoroefer teaches that the method according to claim 1, wherein identifier or keyword is obtained from the set of external data (a list of planned routes with information describing a route identified by a route identifier, see [0067]+).
With regard to claim 12, Schoroefer discloses a navigation system for environments comprising dynamic objects, the system comprising:
a map management system (an online HD map system 110) configured to:
divide a global map into at least a first static map and a first dynamic map, the first dynamic map comprising an inspection target (HP map 510 includes a landmark map (as a static map) and occupancy map (dynamic map), see [0075]-[0076]+);
using the global map as a reference map and a set of external data, which has been obtained from a manufacturing system, to create a real-time global map (a map update module 420 updates previously computed HD map data by receiving recent information form vehicles surrounding, see [0074]+); and
divide the real-time global map to generate a second static map and a second dynamic map, the second dynamic map comprising a target area (see [0076]+);
a mobile robot control unit configured to:
use the second static map to estimate an absolute mobile device position; and use the second dynamic map to estimate a relative mobile device position (the autonomous vehicle determines its current location in the HD map, determine the features on the road relative to the autonomous vehicle’s position, see [0027]+ & [0061]+);
an external system that, in response to being queried, provides the set of external data to the map management system (the HD map system 110 receives sensor data from other vehicle 150s, see [0034]+).
Schoroeter fails to teach a robot that configured to align the absolute mobile device position and the relative mobile device position to generate a combined map that represents an adjusted real-time global map in which the second dynamic map is aligned with the second static map.
Vitzrabin discloses a system for map regeneration of an environment (see the abstract). The system includes robots (AMRs) which map the area until it is able to match an area to the current global map of the environment (see [0025]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Schoroeter by including robots which map the area until it is able to match an area to the current global map of the environment as taught by Vitzrabin for determining the robots’ locations accuracy.
With regard to claims 13, Schoroeter teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the external system comprises systems for processing and transmitting data associated with dynamic elements in an environment (see [0029]+).
With regard to claims 14, Vitzrabin teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the set of external data comprises data received from a manufacturing execution system and reflects environmental information.
With regard to claims 15, Vitzrabin teaches that the navigation system according to claim 14, wherein the environmental information comprises real-time status information related to a set of objects, the real-time status information comprising at least one of a position of presence of an object in the set of objects.
With regard to claims 16, Vitzrabin teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the robot is configured to use the combined map to autonomously update a navigation path associated with the target area (one the map is updated, new global map to the robots for navigation within the environment, see [0021]+).
With regard to claims 17, Vitzrabin teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the robot comprises sensors to gather data for updating the global map in real-time based on changes in object positions and statuses (see [0023]+).
With regard to claims 19, Vitzrabin teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the map management system is further configured to communicate with the external system to update at least one of the first dynamic map or the second dynamic map (AMRs detect changes from the current global map, they collect and send map information to the map manager 110, see [0026]+).
Claim(s) 18 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoroeter (20230121226) in view of Vitzrabin (20250216855) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gona (WO2025022281).
With regard to claim 18, Schoroeter and Vitzrabin disclose the claimed subject matter but fail to teach the robot comprises actuators that are controlled by the mobile robot control unit.
Gona discloses a system 100 for navigation of robots (see the abstract, Fig.1). The system 100 includes a computing device 106 which controls the robot 102 actuators for moving within a predetermined area (see [0051]+
Vitzrabin discloses a system for map regeneration of an environment (see the abstract). The system includes robots (AMRs) which map the area until it is able to match an area to the current global map of the environment (see [0025]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Schoroeter by including robots which map the area until it is able to match an area to the current global map of the environment as taught by Vitzrabin, and further including to control the robots’ actuators moving. The combination of Schoroeter, Vitzrabin and Gona is an adapted system for controlling the robots’ navigation within the area.
With regard to claim 20, Gona teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the robot is configured to use at least one of the absolute mobile device position, the relative mobile device position, or the combined map to perform at least one of an inspection task or a navigation task, (see [0072]+).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662