7-15Notice 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 relates to a foreign application priority JP2023-059808 filed on Apr. 3, 2023.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Applicants’ amendments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive to overcome the rejection. Examiner responds to the Applicant’s argument as the following reasons:
Regarding Claimed Amendment: The claimed amendment filed on 7/24/2026 raises new issues shown below.
Regarding Claimed Rejection Under 101: The amended claims (e.g. claims 1 & 13) include function steps of (wherein determining the additional traveling path includes: setting a plurality of candidate regions … selecting …; and determining the additional traveling path …”) which direct an abstract idea (see rejected below for details).
Regarding Claimed Rejection Under 103: New prior arts found are used to update the rejection as shown below.
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 & 7-11 & 13-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims below:
Claim 1. An information processing device for combining a first map and a second map to create a larger map, the information processing device comprising at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
calculate a position and an orientation of a movable apparatus based on measurement information of a first sensor that measures an environment surroundings the movable apparatus;
create a first environment map relating to a first area in a vicinity of the movable apparatus based on the measurement information of the first sensor and the position and the orientation;
determine a second environment map to be combined with the first environment map, wherein the second environment map relates to a second area different from the first area of the first environment map;
acquire information regarding the second environment map; and
determine an additional traveling path of the movable apparatus for combining the first environment map and the second environment map based on the information regarding the second environment map;
wherein determining the additional traveling path includes:
selecting a plurality of candidate region …
calculating, for each of the plurality of candidate regions …
selecting …one of the plurality of candidate regions …
determining the additional traveling path …
Claim 13. An information processing method comprising:
calculate a position and an orientation of a movable apparatus based on measurement information of a first sensor that measures an environment surrounding the movable apparatus;
create a first environment map relating to a first area in a vicinity of the movable apparatus based on the measurement information of the first sensor and the position and the orientation;
determine a second environment map to be combined with the first environment map, wherein the second environment map relates to a second area different from the first area of the first environment map;
acquiring information regarding the second environment map; and
determine an additional traveling path of the movable apparatus for combining the first environment map and the second environment map based on the information regarding the second environment map;
wherein determining the additional traveling path includes:
selecting a plurality of candidate region …
calculating, for each of the plurality of candidate regions …
selecting …one of the plurality of candidate regions …
determining the additional traveling path …
Claim 14. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing following processes:
calculate a position and an orientation of a movable apparatus based on measurement information of a first sensor that measures an environment surrounding the movable apparatus;
create a first environment map relating to a first area in a vicinity of the movable apparatus based on the measurement information of the first sensor and the position and the orientation;
determine a second environment map to be combined with the first environment map, wherein the second environment map relates to a second area different from the first area of the first environment map;
acquire information regarding the second environment map; and
determine an additional traveling path of the movable apparatus for combining the first environment map and the second environment map based on the information regarding the second environment map;
wherein determining the additional traveling path includes:
selecting a plurality of candidate region …
calculating, for each of the plurality of candidate regions …
selecting …one of the plurality of candidate regions …
determining the additional traveling path …
The independent claims recite an information processing device (in claim 1), a movable apparatus (in claim 12); an information processing method (in claim 13); and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (in claim 14) including functions/processing steps. 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) above constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mathematical” and “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claims recite the bolded limitations as drafted, are simple processing steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of by the “device”; “apparatus” that comprising at least one processor; and “a non-transitory computer”. That is, other than reciting “processor” and “computer” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” or “a non-transitory computer” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple controlling traveling based on the data. The mere nominal recitation of by the device and apparatus with a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract idea with 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 claims processing steps of calculate a position and an orientation of a moveable apparatus based on measurement information; create a first environment map based on the measurement information; determine a second environment map to be combined; determine a traveling path based on the information regarding the second environment map, and etc. (in claims 1, 13 & 14) that general data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional elements of the information processing device/apparatus comprising at least one processor merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose of controlling movable device in an environment, i.e. a processor (as 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 steps of calculating, creating, determining and acquiring information regarding the measurement information and environment map information 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 that the sensors or a camera are all conventional sensors mounted in the movable apparatus for self-position and orientation estimation using 3D environment map for recognizing information regarding positions of objects, and the claimed subject matter does not provide any signification and improving indication for the movable device other than a conventional computer within the information processing device/apparatus. 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 calculating, creating, determining and acquiring information regarding the measurement information and environment map information based on the information are a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, the conclusion that the bolded steps above are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-5, and 7-11 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, dependent claims 2-5, and 7-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1, 13 & 14.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 & 13-15 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 & 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites of “determining a second environment map to be combined with the first environment map” and “determining an additional traveling path of the movable apparatus for combining the first environment map and the second environment map” are not described in the current application’s specification. Therefore, the amendment subjection matter of “combined” represents a new matter that not described in the specification.
Claims 12-14 have same issue above.
Claims 2-5, 7-11 & 15 depend upon rejected claims above.
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 1-5 & 7-15 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, recites “determining a second environment map to be combined with the first environment map”, wherein the underline subject matter is indefinite. The claim fails to define how “a second environment map” obtained? Also, the claim recites of “determining an additional traveling path” which is unclear and indefinite because an original (or existing) travel path was not defined.
Claims 13-14 have same issue above.
Claims 2-5, 7-11 & 15 depend upon rejected claim 1.
Below are cited references that teach the claimed subject matter as best understood.
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) 1-3 & 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka (20210190535) in view of Mahler (20240069150).
With regard to claims 1 & 12-14, Tomioka discloses an information processing device comprising at least one processor or circuit (see Fig. 1) configured to function as:
calculate a position and an orientation of a movable apparatus based on measurement information of a first sensor that measures an environment surrounding the movable apparatus (the sensor information input unit 12, see [0026]-[0027]+).
create a first environment map relating to a first area in a vicinity of the movable apparatus based on the measurement information of the first sensor and the position and the orientation (the calculated information from the position and orientation estimation unit 13, is input to the map storage unit to generate an updated map, see [0030]+);
determine a second environment map to be updated with the first environment map, wherein the second environment map relates to a second area different from the first area of the first environment map (a different obtaining unit 120 obtains a difference indicating the magnitude of change in the position and orientation estimated by the estimation unit 13, see [0047]+);
acquire information regarding the second environment map (determines whether to update the map based on the difference calculated by the difference obtaining unit 120, see [0048]+); and
determine a traveling path of the movable apparatus (presenting a moving route of the vehicle, see [0077]+),
control traveling based on the traveling path (control apparatus or actuator for controlling the vehicle based on control values calculated, see [0025]+)
wherein determining the traveling path includes: setting a plurality of candidate regions in the second environment map; calculating, for each of the plurality of candidate regions, an evaluation value based on at least one of a number of keyframes, a distribution of the keyframes, a number of feature points, and a distribution of the feature points included in the candidate region; selecting, as a region to be combined with the first environment map, one of the plurality of candidate regions for which the evaluation value is equal to or greater than a corresponding predetermined threshold value; and determining the additional traveling path to include a passing point located in a vicinity of a position of a keyframe included in the selected region to be updated (determining control values such that the vehicle approaches the target point set, calculate control value, select optimum control value, and etc., see [0044]-[0045]+)
Tomioka fails to teach combine the maps data (1st and 2nd map data).
Mahler discloses an apparatus including a processor 110 which fuses the HD map and the sensor data (could be a map) (see [0042]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Tomioka by including combination of different map areas within an environment map as taught by Mahler. The combination of Tomioka and Mahler is an adapted system for vehicle navigating with accuracy and effectively.
With regard to claim 2. Tomioka teaches that the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein determining the second environment map comprises selecting, as the second environment map, an environment map relating to the second area located within a predetermined distance from the traveling path of the movable apparatus (select map elements nearby, see [0092]+) .
With regard to claim 3. Tomioka teaches that the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein determining the second environment map comprises selecting, the second environment map in accordance with an operation of a user (the processing system is input by a user, see [0050]+).
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) 4, 7-11 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka (20210190535) in view of Mahler (20240069150) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukui (20240271956).
With regard to claim 4. Tomioka and Mahler fail to teach that determining the traveling path such that a merging accuracy when the first environment map and the second environment map are merged is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, based on the information regarding the second environment map
Fukui teaches that wherein determining the traveling path comprises determining the traveling path such that a merging accuracy when the first environment map and the second environment map are merged is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, based on the information regarding the second environment map (step S1104 for determining consistency with a predetermined value, see [0087]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Tomioka by including combination of different map areas within an environment map as taught by Mahler, and further including determining the traveling path such that a merging accuracy when the first environment map and the second environment map are merged is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, based on the information regarding the second environment map as taught by Kukui. The combination of Tomioka, Mahler and Kukui is an adapted system for vehicle navigating with accuracy and effectively.
With regard to claim 5. Fukui teaches that the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein in a case where a plurality of the traveling paths with a merging accuracy of equal to or greater than a predetermined value is present, determining the travel path comprises selecting one of the traveling paths based on at least one of a traveling time of the traveling path, a path length of the traveling path, the accuracy of merging, and a date and time of the second environment map (the movement setting section 220 control the movement of the object 30 based on the movement cost, safety assurance, wherein the movement cost includes movement distance, time, fuel, toll, and etc., see [0071]+).
With regard to claim 6. Toyoura teaches that the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein in key frames and feature points held by the second environment map are included in a merged region when the first environment map and the second environment map are merged, determining the traveling path comprises determining the traveling path based on at least one of a number of the key frames, a distribution of the key frames, a number of the feature points, and a distribution of the feature points (map base 550 and environment map 500 are merged and analyzed for updated and determining a path planning based on road condition, see [0073]-[0075]+, [0087]-[0091]+ & [0288]-[0289]+).
With regard to claim 7. Fukui teaches that the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein determining the traveling path comprises determining the traveling path such that a path length of a merged region when the first environment map and the second environment map are merged is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (checking whether the new partial map error regarding a predetermined threshold, see [0111]-[0113]+).
With regard to claim 8. Fukui teaches that the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein determining the traveling path comprises selecting, as the second environment map, an environment map holding information from later than a predetermined date and time (updating of a reference map when the information processing device 20 detecting inconsistency between the reference map and the real world, see [0045]+, and the system includes a removable recording medium 901 which enables to set date and time to remove the temporary information, see [0178]+).
With regard to claim 9. Fukui teaches that the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein determining the traveling path comprises determining the traveling path based on positions and orientations of key frames held by the second environment map (the accuracy of the reference map is used for the automated driving control, see [0037]+).
With regard to claim 10. Fukui teaches that the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein determining the traveling path comprises determining the traveling path based on route information created based on position and orientation information of a second sensor measured when the second environment map is created (the information processing device 20 and the information processing server capable of detecting change in the real world more efficiently and keeping the reference map in a state closer to the rea world situation, see [0043]-[0050]+).
With regard to claim 11. Fukui teaches that the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
merge the first environment map and the second environment map, change the traveling path based on a merging accuracy associated with the merged environment maps (determining the match observation information against reference map with a predetermined value, controlling the driving to a new unit space, see [0085]-[0087]+).
With regard to claim 15. Tomioka teaches that the traveling path has a traveling direction at the passing point is determined based on an orientation of the keyframe (see [0080]+)
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
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights