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 .
Application Status
This Non-final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 01 October 2025. Claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-21, and 23 are examined and pending. Claims 1, 3, 15, and 17 are currently amended, and claims 2, 13-14, 16, 22, and 24-29 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Initially, the Examiner notes that applicant did not present any arguments against the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). However, the Examiner has considered the amendments in an effort to expedite prosecution of the application. As such the claim interpretation under USC 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
In an effort to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended each of independent claims 1 and 15 to recite update the heterogenous map by fusing the selected map element, or a transformed version of the selected map element, with the heterogenous map to facilitate localization of the sensor device in the real-world environment. Support for this amendment is found, for example, in paragraphs [0028], [0036], [0052]-[0054] of the Applicant's published patent application.
Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims are integrated into a practical application that improves the technical functionality of a mapping device in the specific context of heterogeneous localization-and-mapping systems. For example, claims 1 and 15 now require that the mapping device not merely evaluate information, but update the heterogeneous map by fusing the selected map element, or a transformed version of the selected map element, with the heterogeneous map to facilitate localization of a sensor device in a real-world environment.
Notably, the Examiner's characterization of the claimed subject matter as a "mental process" is respectfully traversed. As amended, claims 1 and 15 require a mapping device to access image-based and structure-based map elements representing different types of features at the same real-world locations, determine an information difference metric indicative of differences between heterogeneous representations, select map elements for updating based on capturing time, current sensor data type, and the information difference metric, and then perform a fusion-based update of the heterogeneous map. This combination is not a mere mental evaluation of information. Rather, it is a specific technological workflow that operates on heterogeneous sensor-derived map element representations and culminates in a concrete map- maintenance operation. As described in the specification, this fusion-based update modifies the physical state of complex data structures, such as updating vertices and edges in a graph map or modifying cells in an occupancy map or octree representation (see, e.g., paragraphs [0037]- [0038] and [0052]). Such high-resolution, multi-modal data manipulations are fundamentally incompatible with mental execution.
Moreover, each of the independent claims is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The Final Office Action previously treated "selecting ... for updating" as insignificant post-solution activity. The amended claims eliminate that rationale by expressly requiring the mapping device to update the heterogeneous map by fusing the selected (or transformed) map element with the heterogeneous map. This is a technological operation that changes the heterogeneous map maintained by the mapping device so that the map better supports localization in a real-world environment. The claims therefore apply any alleged judicial exception in a specific technological setting to achieve a specific technical result, i.e., maintaining a heterogeneous map that resolves conflicts between heterogeneous representations captured at different times and/or with different sensor modalities.
It is further submitted that the claimed selection-and-fusion logic-evaluating capturing times, current sensor data type, and an information difference metric between heterogeneous representations-addresses a technical problem unique to computer-implemented collaborative mapping systems. Namely, inconsistencies that arise when environments change between data- capture events and when different sensor modalities provide different representations of the same location. Because each of the independent claims requires the specific technical act of fusion- based heterogeneous map updating in this context, claims 1 and 15 are integrated into a practical application and are patent-eligible.
Accordingly, for at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
The examiner has considered the arguments and respectfully disagree.
The independent claims recite identify pairs of corresponding map elements, each pair comprising an image-based map element of the accessed image-based elements, and a structure-based map element of the accessed structure-based map elements, the image-based map element and the structure-based map element representing features at a same real-world location, wherein a real-world location includes a region in the real-world environment and for each pair of corresponding map elements: determine an information difference metric between the image-based map element and the structure-based map element, which is indicative of a difference in a representation of the real-world location by the image-based map element and a representation of the real-world location by the structured-based map element. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a mapping device”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as map elements (i.e., map elements and structure-based map elements, features of real world could identify pairs of corresponding map elements, each pair comprising an image-based map element of the accessed image-based elements, and a structure-based map element of the accessed structure-based map elements, the image-based map element and the structure-based map element representing features at the same real-world location, and for each pair of corresponding map elements: determine an information difference metric between the image-based map element and the structure-based map element, which is indicative of a difference in a representation of the real-world location by the image-based map element and a representation of the real-world location by the structured-based map element. The mere nominal recitation of “a mapping device” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
The independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations/elements of receiving a request pertaining to localization using current sensor data which is image- based sensor data or structure-based sensor data, accessing image-based map elements and structure-based map elements, representing visual features and structural features in a real-world environment, respectively, each map element being associated with a capturing time indicating a time of capturing the sensor data based on which it was derived; select one of the map elements of the pair of corresponding map elements for updating the heterogenous map, based on a comparison of the respective capturing times, a type of the current sensor data, and the information difference metric; update the heterogenous map by fusing the selected map element, or a transformed version of the selected map element, with the heterogenous map to facilitate localization of the sensor device in the real-world environment; mapping device. The receiving and accessing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (sensor data which is image-based sensor data or structure-based sensor data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The selecting and updating step/element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a mapping device is recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
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.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, accessing, selecting, and updating steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities 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 specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-21, and 23 under USC 101 is maintained herein.
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, 3-12, 15, 17-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite identify pairs of corresponding map elements, each pair comprising an image-based map element of the accessed image-based elements, and a structure-based map element of the accessed structure-based map elements, the image-based map element and the structure-based map element representing features at a same real-world location, wherein a real-world location includes a region in the real-world environment and for each pair of corresponding map elements: determine an information difference metric between the image-based map element and the structure-based map element, which is indicative of a difference in a representation of the real-world location by the image-based map element and a representation of the real-world location by the structured-based map element. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a mapping device”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as map elements (i.e., map elements and structure-based map elements, features of real world could identify pairs of corresponding map elements, each pair comprising an image-based map element of the accessed image-based elements, and a structure-based map element of the accessed structure-based map elements, the image-based map element and the structure-based map element representing features at the same real-world location, and for each pair of corresponding map elements: determine an information difference metric between the image-based map element and the structure-based map element, which is indicative of a difference in a representation of the real-world location by the image-based map element and a representation of the real-world location by the structured-based map element. The mere nominal recitation of “a mapping device” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receiving a request pertaining to localization using current sensor data which is image- based sensor data or structure-based sensor data, accessing image-based map elements and structure-based map elements, representing visual features and structural features in a real-world environment, respectively, each map element being associated with a capturing time indicating a time of capturing the sensor data based on which it was derived; select one of the map elements of the pair of corresponding map elements for updating the heterogenous map, based on a comparison of the respective capturing times, a type of the current sensor data, and the information difference metric; update the heterogenous map by fusing the selected map element, or a transformed version of the selected map element, with the heterogenous map to facilitate localization of the sensor device in the real-world environment; mapping device. The receiving and accessing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (sensor data which is image-based sensor data or structure-based sensor data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The selecting and updating step/element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a mapping device is recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
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.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, accessing, and selecting steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities 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 specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 3-12, 17-21, and 23 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-21, and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights