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 .
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, 5-8, 12-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1, 5-8, 12-17, 19-20 are held to claim an unpatentable abstract idea, and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The limitations of the independent claims of obtaining a label map; obtaining a crossing border; determine an adjacency relationship; and fusing the adjacent rooms covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the application of the steps by a generic processor, nothing is being recited that could not be performed mentally. The new limitations do not add anything different than the previous dependent claims, and are rejected because those steps can be performed mentally as well.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the elements of – using a processor to perform the listed steps. The processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The use of an autonomous robot for receiving information and performing mental steps is still equivalent to using a generic processor to perform generic computer functions. If the autonomous robot is controlled in a particular way or includes more than a general processor, these need to be incorporated into the claims.
The claim does 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 a processor to perform the listed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Turning to the dependent claims, all the dependent claims simply add more steps to the mental process algorithm. Thus, all dependent claims are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Comment on Closest Pieces of Prior Art
The two closest pieces of prior art are:
Ozick which is directed to an autonomous mobile robot system for bounded areas including a navigation beacon and an autonomous coverage robot. The navigation beacon has a gateway beacon emitter arranged to transmit a gateway marking emission with the navigation beacon disposed within a gateway between the first bounded area and an adjacent second bounded area. The autonomous coverage robot includes a beacon emission sensor responsive to the beacon emission, and a drive system configured to maneuver the robot about the first bounded area in a cleaning mode in which the robot is redirected in response to detecting the gateway marking emission. The drive system is also configured to maneuver the robot through the gateway into the second bounded area in a migration mode
Vicenti which is directed to a method includes maneuvering a robot in (i) a following mode in which the robot is controlled to travel along a path segment adjacent an obstacle, while recording data indicative of the path segment, and (ii) in a coverage mode in which the robot is controlled to traverse an area. The method includes generating data indicative of a layout of the area, updating data indicative of a calculated robot pose based at least on odometry, and calculating a pose confidence level. The method includes, in response to the confidence level being below a confidence limit, maneuvering the robot to a suspected location of the path segment, based on the calculated robot pose and the data indicative of the layout and, in response to detecting the path segment within a distance from the suspected location, updating the data indicative of the calculated pose and/or the layout.
Neither of these references teach the limitations of claim 2, 3, or 4 (or mirrored claims from the other independent claims). These claims are now rolled into the independent claims. The other claims depend from these claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant merely states that because there are no prior art rejections, then there should be no 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. However, these are separate analyses and the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis has been provided above. The use of an autonomous robot for receiving information and performing mental steps is still equivalent to using a generic processor to perform generic computer functions. If the autonomous robot is controlled in a particular way or includes more than a general processor, these need to be incorporated into the claims.
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 ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 5712725109. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667