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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application filed in Japan on 06/11/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 4-6, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 and 6 are directed to an apparatus, claim 11 and 12 are directed to a method, claim 13 and 14 are directed to a storage medium. Therefore, claims 1, 6 and 16 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 6 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to
analyze sensor information and create map base data that is data used for updating an environment map including environment information;
hold the environment map and update the environment map on a basis of the map base data; analyze the environment map and compensate for a missing part of the environment information in the environment map;
estimate content of a missing part of a predetermined kind of environment information in a first region where the predetermined kind of environment information is missing by evaluating continuity of another kind of environment information with a second region where the predetermined kind of environment information is recorded; and
provide the estimated content as compensation for the missing part.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “Analyze …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[Mental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing method comprising:
acquiring sensor information;
analyzing the sensor information and creating map base data that is data used for updating an environment map including environment information;
updating the environment map on a basis of the map base data;
analyzing the environment map to compensate for the environment information in the environment map;
estimating content of a missing part of a predetermined kind of environment information in a first region where the predetermined kind of environment information is missing by evaluating continuity of another kind of environment information with a second region where the predetermined kind of environment information is recorded; and
providing the estimated content as compensation for the missing part.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 11 and 13 further recite “An information processing apparatus comprising; processing circuitry configured to; An information processing method comprising: acquiring sensor information; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions thereon which, when executed by a computer” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “analyzing the sensor information and creating map base data that is data used for updating an environment map including environment information” in claim 1 and “analyzing the sensor information and creating map base data that is data used for updating an environment map including environment information” in claim 14 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the autonomous vehicle autonomously drives through the environment using the map data” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. 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. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because 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 performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 4-5 and 8-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 4-5 and 8-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4-6, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (U.S.2020/0241554), Takeuchi, (U.S.20170010100) and further in view of Margines et al (U.S. 2023/0298301)
1. As per claims 1,11,13 Takahashi disclosed an information processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to analyze sensor information [Paragraph. 0078) and create map base data that is data used for updating an environment map including environment information [Paragraph. 0080]; hold the environment map and update the environment map on a basis of the map base data; and analyze the environment map [Paragraph. 0064-0068].
However, Takahashi did not explicitly disclose in detail, “compensate for a missing part of the environment information in the environment map”.
In the same field of endeavor Takeuchi disclosed, “With the above-described configuration, even if an environmental change occurs in a blind spot of a mobile robot, reliability of map information on a region where the environmental change is detected can be updated using information acquired by an environmental sensor. For this reason, even if an environmental change occurs in a blind spot of the mobile robot, map information of a region with the change can be modified in a short time, and a high-accuracy map can be produced (Paragraph. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated, With the above-described configuration, even if an environmental change occurs in a blind spot of a mobile robot, reliability of map information on a region where the environmental change is detected can be updated using information acquired by an environmental sensor. For this reason, even if an environmental change occurs in a blind spot of the mobile robot, map information of a region with the change can be modified in a short time, and a high-accuracy map can be produced as taught by Takeuchi in the method and system of Takahashi to increase efficiency of generating accurate maps.
However, Takehashi-Takeuchi did not explicitly disclose, “Estimate content of a missing part of a predetermined kind of environment information in a first region where the predetermined kind of environment information is missing by evaluating continuity of another kind of environment information with a second region where the predetermined kind of environment information is recorded; and provide the estimated content as compensation for the missing part.”.
Margines disclosed the surfel map 250 can include an overpass surfel 256 that can represent an overpass 206 in the environment. The overpass 206 can be outside a detectable region for a detection sensor, e.g., a lidar sensor, because the overpass 206 has a high altitude, and therefore is outside the field of view of the lidar sensor. Even though the overpass 206 is outside the detectable region for the detection sensor, the system can still make predictions for a state of the overpass 206 based on the overpass surfel 256 and an image captured by a camera. For example, the system can determine whether color data of the pixels corresponding to the overpass in the image matches color data of the overpass surfel 256. If the two matches, the system can determine there are no unexpected changes to the overpass 206. If the two do not match, the system can determine the status of the overpass 206 has changed, e.g., the overpass has been removed or reconstructed. The planning subsystem of the autonomous vehicle can use the predicted status of the overpass to generate navigation plans, e.g., to avoid the region of the overpass if the region is predicted to be under construction. (Paragraph. 0054).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated the surfel map 250 can include an overpass surfel 256 that can represent an overpass 206 in the environment. The overpass 206 can be outside a detectable region for a detection sensor, e.g., a lidar sensor, because the overpass 206 has a high altitude, and therefore is outside the field of view of the lidar sensor. Even though the overpass 206 is outside the detectable region for the detection sensor, the system can still make predictions for a state of the overpass 206 based on the overpass surfel 256 and an image captured by a camera. For example, the system can determine whether color data of the pixels corresponding to the overpass in the image matches color data of the overpass surfel 256. If the two matches, the system can determine there are no unexpected changes to the overpass 206. If the two do not match, the system can determine the status of the overpass 206 has changed, e.g., the overpass has been removed or reconstructed. The planning subsystem of the autonomous vehicle can use the predicted status of the overpass to generate navigation plans, e.g., to avoid the region of the overpass if the region is predicted to be under construction as taught by Margines in the method and system of Takehashi-Takeuchi to increase efficiency of generating accurate maps.
2. As per claim 4 Takehashi-Takeuchi-Margines disclosed wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to compensate for the missing part of the environment information in a format in which the environment information compensated for is identified (Takeuchi, Paragraph. 0044). The claim 4 has the same motivation as to claims 1,11 and 13.
3. As per claim 5 Takehashi-Takeuchi-Margines disclosed wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to create first map base data having a first range and first resolution and a second map base data having a second range wider than the first range and second resolution lower than the first resolution, update a first environment map having a third range and the first resolution on a basis of the first map base data (Takeuchi, Paragraph. 0079), and update a second environment map having a fourth range wider than the third range and the second resolution on a basis of the second map base data (Takehashi, Paragraph. 0079-0080), and analyze at least the first environment map or the second environment map and compensate for or correct environment information in the analyzed environment map (Takeuchi, Paragraph. 0044). The claim 5 has the same motivation as to claims 1,11 and 13.
4. As per claims 6,12,14 Takehashi-Takeuchi-Margines disclosed an information processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to analyze sensor information and create map base data that is data us ed for updating an environment map including environment information; hold the environment map and update the environment map on a basis of the map base data, create t first map base data having a first range and first resolution and a second map base data having a second range wider than the first range and second resolution lower than the first resolution (Takeuchi, Paragraph. 0079), update a first environment map having a third range and the first resolution on a basis of the first map base data, update a second environment map having a fourth range wider than the third range and the second resolution on a basis of the second map base data (Takeuchi, Paragraph. 0126). The claim 6 has the same motivation as to claims 1,11 and 13.
5. As per claim 8 Takehashi-Takeuchi-Margines disclosed wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to prepare action planning of a mobile object, select one of the first environment map and the second environment map according to a situation, and prepare the action planning on a basis of the selected environment map (Takahashi, Paragraph. 0106).
6. As per claim 9 Takehashi-Takeuchi-Margines disclosed wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to prepare the action planning on a basis of the second environment map, and prepare the action planning on a basis of the first environment map in a case where it is determined that more accurate action planning is necessary (Takehashi, Paragraph. 0007).
7. As per claim 10 Takehashi-Takeuchi-Margines disclosed wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to analyze at least the first environment map or the second environment map and compensate for or correct environment information in the analyzed environment map (Takeuchi, Paragraph. 0044). The claim 10 has the same motivation as to claims 1,11 and 13.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument is as follows.
Applicant alleged that prior art did not disclose, “Estimate content of a missing part of a predetermined kind of environment information in a first region where the predetermined kind of environment information is missing by evaluating continuity of another kind of environment information with a second region where the predetermined kind of environment information is recorded; and provide the estimated content as compensation for the missing part”.
As to applicant’s allegation Margines disclosed the surfel map 250 can include an overpass surfel 256 that can represent an overpass 206 in the environment. The overpass 206 can be outside a detectable region for a detection sensor, e.g., a lidar sensor, because the overpass 206 has a high altitude, and therefore is outside the field of view of the lidar sensor. Even though the overpass 206 is outside the detectable region for the detection sensor, the system can still make predictions for a state of the overpass 206 based on the overpass surfel 256 and an image captured by a camera. For example, the system can determine whether color data of the pixels corresponding to the overpass in the image matches color data of the overpass surfel 256. If the two matches, the system can determine there are no unexpected changes to the overpass 206. If the two do not match, the system can determine the status of the overpass 206 has changed, e.g., the overpass has been removed or reconstructed. The planning subsystem of the autonomous vehicle can use the predicted status of the overpass to generate navigation plans, e.g., to avoid the region of the overpass if the region is predicted to be under construction. (Paragraph. 0054).
B. Applicant alleged that prior art did not disclose, “update a first environment map having a third range and the first resolution on a basis of the first map base data; update a second environment map having a fourth range wider than the third range and the second resolution on a basis of the second map base data”.
As to applicant’s argument Takeuchi disclosed, “Although an example in which the environmental sensors 301, 302, and 303 are fixed and arranged at predetermined intervals in a surrounding environment has been described in the first embodiment, the present disclosure is not limited to this. For example, an environmental sensor may be a sensor which can change a detection region, such as an oscillating type sensor which changes in installation angle from hour to hour. An environmental sensor which can change a detection region can acquire environmental information over a wider range. In the case of an oscillating type sensor, coordinates in environmental information can be transformed into coordinates in the map information of the mobile robot 200 by notifying the coordinate transformation section 240 of an installation angle at the time of acquiring the environmental information (Paragraph. 0126). Examiner interpreted the “environment map” as the “environmental information” and the (first, second, third and fourth) ranges are interpreted as “can acquire environmental information over a wider range”.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
10. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
11. 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 un published 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).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667