2DETAILED 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 15-18 and 20-22 of US Application No. 18/561,611 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 15, 21, and 22 and canceled claim 19. Applicant previously canceled claims 1-14.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in consideration of the amended abstract.
The previous rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter is withdrawn in consideration of amended claim 22.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 22 January 2026, regarding the rejections of claims 15-18 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant first argues that the claimed process is performed by a control unit and therefore is not performed in the human mind. However, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, even if it is claimed as being performed by a computer, the limitation is still evaluated as capable of being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant then argues that a person cannot practically perform “estimate relative positions and/or postures” in the mind because a person is incapable of analyzing coded information within a captured image. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As claimed, the encoded information is information that 1) identifies the object and 2) identifies relative position and postures of the detection unit and the object. The claim does not distinguish how the information is encoded such that the information cannot be mentally identified and analyzed to estimate relative positions and/or postures. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, “encoded information” encompasses numbers and letters. For example, designating a marker with a unique letter and numerical coordinates representing the object’s position in a space is encoding the marker with information that identifies the object, i.e., the letter, and information that identifies the relative position and posture, i.e., numerical coordinates. A person reviewing images can identify encoded information, such as letters/numbers, in an image and use those that encoded information to estimate relative positions/postures. That the encoded information could be complex or invisible, as suggested by Applicant, is moot, as the claim is not defining the coded information in any way that is inherently complex or invisible. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant then argues that the use of the estimated relative positions and/or postures, such as by generating a map, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the Prong Two analysis considers the claim as a whole. That is, the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception need to be evaluated together to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Because a judicial exception alone is not eligible subject matter, if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(III). As indicated in the § 101 rejection, “generate map information . . . by optimizing an evaluation function” is also an abstract idea, i.e., performing a mathematical operation. Using the estimated relative positions and/or postures to generate map information by optimizing an evaluation function merely recites another judicial exception in addition to a judicial exception, which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Applicant again argues that the claim recites a control unit that performs one or more limitations recited in claim 15. The Examiner maintains that the above response is applicable to claims 21 and 22 for the same reasons indicated above. Applicant further argues that a person is not capable of “reading, by a control unit, from a storage unit . . .”. The Examiner agrees. However, this limitation has been identified as an additional element, not an abstract idea. Whether or not the limitation can be performed in the human mind is moot. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The previous rejections of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claim 15.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 21 and 22 under § 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The previous rejections are maintained.
Applicant first argues that the previously-cited prior art does not teach or suggest that objects are “grouped according to a use”. However, Salfity discloses that the occupancy map may include one or more layers for each type of permanence classification, as well as user-defined or customized classifications. See ¶ [0053]. Classifying/grouping according to a use is merely a user-defined/customized classification. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Salfity teaches “grouped according to a use”.
Applicant then argues that Salfity does not teach or suggest a “storage unit that stores a plurality of objects”. However, Salfity discloses real world layers for an area that robot 101 may map, where the map includes objects. See Fig. 1D and ¶ [0022]. The control system may, for example, generate an occupancy map and send the occupancy map to another robot. See ¶ [0031]. Storing the occupancy map, which includes layers comprised of objects, must be saved in order to send the map to other robots. Further, an initial map may be created, where the initial map may be updated. See ¶ [0041]. Again, updating an initial map requires that the initial map be stored in some form of storage unit. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Salfity teaches “storage unit that stores a plurality of objects”.
Finally, Applicant argues that Salfity does not teach or suggest “layout constraint condition information for constraining so as not to change relative arrangements and/or postures of the objects”. However, Salfity discloses that fixed objects, i.e., objects classified as fixed, may be included in a single-layer. See ¶ [0020]. An object being fixed in its environment is layout constraint condition information. Where multiple objects that are included in a single layer are each fixed in the environment, those objects will not change with respect to relative arrangement or posture. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Salfity teaches layout constraint condition information (i.e., multiple objects classified as fixed) for constraining so as not to change relative arrangements and/or postures of the objects (i.e., multiple fixed objects are inherently constrained so that relative arrangement and/or posture to not change).
Based on the above, the previous rejections of claims 21 and 22 under § 102 are maintained.
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 15-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 15-18 and 20-22 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do independent claims 15, 21, and 22 fall within one of the statutory categories? Independent claims 15 and 22 are directed toward a machine and independent claim 21 is directed toward a process, each of which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, independent claims 15, 21, and 22 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Independent claim 15 recites “estimate relative positions and/or postures of at least one object of the plurality of objects and the control target device based on the captured images of a marker attached to the at least one object, the marker including first encoded information identifying the at least one object and second encoded information indicating relative positions and postures of the detection unit and the at least one object” and “generate map information in the space based on the estimated relative positions and/or postures of a part of the objects and the control target device in the space and the layout constraint condition information stored in the storage unit by optimizing an evaluation function based on an information matrix and an information vector by performing addition of elements of the information matrix in layout constraint graph-SLAM and addition of elements of the information vector in layout constraint graph-SLAM”. Independent claims 21 and 22 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 15. Estimating relative positions and/or postures based on images may be performed mentally. Generating map information based on the estimated relative positions and/or postures by optimizing an evaluation function is evaluating a mathematical relationship. That the map information generation is performed by a control unit (claim 1) or a program for executions on a computer (claim 22) does not remove the instant limitation from the mental process grouping. Therefore, claims 15, 21, and 22 recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, claims 15, 21, and 22 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the instant application, claims 15, 21, and 22 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 15 recites the additional elements “a storage unit configured to store a plurality of objects arranged in a space in which the control target device is positioned, one or more groups including a part of the plurality of objects and grouped according to a use, and layout constraint condition information for constraining so as not to change relative arrangements and/or postures of the objects constituting the group” and “control the control target device to move along a predetermined trajectory and control a detection unit provided in the control target device to capture images in a capturable range each time a predetermined sampling period elapses, and acquire the captured images”. Claims 21 and 22 recite a substantially similar limitation. Claim 15 also recites “a control unit” while claim 22 also recites a “program for causing a computer to execute”.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The control unit (claim 15) and the program for causing a computer to execute (claim 22), given their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a computer. Using the control unit or program to generate map information is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas.
Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Storing a plurality of objects and layout constraint condition information in a storage unit is data gathering. Capturing images using a detection unit by controlling a control target device to move along a trajectory is also data gathering.
Therefore, claims 15, 21, and 22 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claims 15, 21, and 22 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 15, 21, and 22 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is WURC activity. Generic computing functions include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The storage unit is part of a generic computer. Storing data is a generic computing function. Therefore, storing the plurality of objects and layout constraint condition information is merely a generic computing device performing a generic computing function. In addition, controlling a control target device to move along a predetermined trajectory and control a detection unit provided in the control target device to capture images in a capturable range each time a predetermined sampling period elapses, and acquire the captured images. Salfity, for example, discloses a robot 100 having sensors 150, e.g., a camera 154, that captures images of the region as the robot traverses the region. See Fig. 1 and ¶ [0014]. The additional elements, both individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 15, 21, and 22 (a) are directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 16 and 17 further define a previously-identified additional element. However, even as further defined, the additional element is still data gathering and is still a generic computing device performing generic computing functions. Therefore, claims 16 and 17 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 15.
Claim 18 recites “calculate, from a vector of object position and posture of relative positions and/or relative postures of the control target device and at least one of the objects constituting the group, which is acquired by the control target device at a first time and calculated from an image of the object and a vector of the layout constraint condition information, a vector of a position and/or posture of another object constituting the group that is not acquired by the control target device”, which is a mathematical concept. That the calculation is performed by a control unit does not remove the instant limitation from the mathematical concepts grouping. Claim 18 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 15.
Claim 19 recites “generate, from the vector of the object position and posture and the vector of the layout constraint condition information, an information matrix and an information vector that are related to the objects constituting the group by adding elements based on the vector of the object position and posture that is acquired and calculated at each time by the control target device”, which is a mathematical concept. That the information matrix and information vector is performed by a control unit does not remove the instant limitation from the mathematical concepts grouping. Claim 19 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 19 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 15.
Claim 20 recites “obtain a difference vector between a first estimated position and posture vector, which is a position and a posture calculated from the vector of the object position and posture, and a second estimated position and posture vector, which is a position and/or posture calculated from the vector of the position and/or posture of the another object constituting the group that is not acquired by the control target device”, which is a mathematical concept. That the difference vector is obtained by a control unit does not remove the instant limitation from the mathematical concepts grouping. Claim 20 also recites “delete the second element of the two objects constituting the group when an inner product of the difference vector exceeds a predetermined threshold value”, which may be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, claim 20 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 15.
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 AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights