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 .
The current application is CON. of Application No. 18/195329 filed on May 09, 2023 which now Pat. No. 12019448.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims shown:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by a computing system, a map of an environment based on sensor data of the environment;
identifying, by the computing system, a point of interest in the map associated with an area in the environment where a change to the area would affect navigation of the area; and
storing, by the computing system, additional sensor data for the area.
Claim 11. A system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
determining a map of an environment based on sensor data of the environment;
identifying a point of interest in the map associated with an area in the environment where a change to the area would affect navigation of the area; and
storing additional sensor data for the area.
Claim 16. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
determining a map of an environment based on sensor data of the environment;
identifying a point of interest in the map associated with an area in the environment where a change to the area would affect navigation of the area; and
storing additional sensor data for the area.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim cites a computer-implemented method/ a system/ a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including at least one processing step. 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) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “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 claim recites the limitation of “determining a map of an environment …” and “identifying a point of interest in a map …”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the computing system”. That is, other than reciting “by the computing system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the computing system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected, identifying the collected data and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by the computing system does not take the claim limitations out of the 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 claim recites additional elements or steps of “storing, by the computing system, additional sensor data for the area”. The “determining” and “identifying” steps (in the 101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation above) are cited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering road & condition data for use in the identifying step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “storing …” step is also recited at generality and amounts to mere post solution which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “the computing system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using 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 determining, identifying and storing steps 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. A system comprises at least one processor, and a memory storing instructions (as claimed in claim 11, e.g.) for performing mental processing steps are well-known, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. 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).
Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-10, 12-15 & 17-20 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 2-10, 12-15 & 17-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 11 & 16
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (20210097103) in view of Pandey (20200363231).
With regard to claim 1, Kang discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
Collecting and transmitting, by a computing system, a map of an environment based on sensor data of the environment (a mapping robot 120 collect data of a target place based on sensors such as Lidar, IMU, camera, and etc., generates an interior image to be used, and transmitting the data to the server 110, see [0030]-[0035]+) ;
identifying, by the computing system, a point of interest in the map associated with an area in the environment where a change to the area would affect navigation of the area (detecting of a POI changed within the target place, see [0035]+), ; and
storing, by the computing system, additional sensor data for the area (store the data received from the mapping robot, see [0037]+).
Kang is silent about determining, by a computing system, a map of an environment based on sensor data of the environment
Pandey discloses a system chronicled history information in a map. The system obtains sensor data within an area and determines a map of environment based on the sensor data (see [0024]-[0026]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kang by including to determine a map of environment based on the sensor data as taught by Pandey. The combination of Kang and Pandey is an adapted system for updating the map of an environment for accuracy.
With regard to claim 2, Kang teaches that the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing, by the computing system, data associated with the map and the sensor data of the environment, wherein the change to the area and the additional sensor data are determined based on the comparing (collecting information on POIs in a real space environment, and automatically updating a change when there is the change as a result of a comparison with previously collected information, see [0006]-[0007] & [0040]+).
With regard to claim 3, Kang teaches that the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the comparing data associated with the map and the sensor data of the environment comprises: projecting, by the computing system, the data associated with the map data over the sensor data of the environment (the server construct the POI database obtained which are trained the deep learning model to recognize the attributes of a POI. Datafication is desired by predicting or recognizing whether a corresponding POIs, see [0071]-[0072]+) .
With regard to claim 4, Kang teaches that the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to a determination that the change to the area would affect navigation, estimating, by the computing system, a value of a road condition to determine whether a vehicle can safely navigate in the area (The updated POIs changed in an area is used by the service robot 130 for autonomous driving, see [0033]+).
With regard to claim 5, Kang teaches that the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein data associated with the map includes at least one of a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the area, a point cloud of the area, images of the area, and semantic information for the area (the cloud server generates a 3D map, see [0038]+).
With regard to claim 6, Kang teaches that the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein at least one of addition, removal, and modification of data associated with the map is based on the additional sensor data (the cloud server updates information on the target place (POIs in the area) for recognize and updating a POI change based on a comparison, see [0032]-[0033]+).
With regard to claim 7, Kang teaches that the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the data associated with the map is associated with a point cloud of the area and the additional sensor data is associated with LiDAR data (the mapping robot implemented to include a lidar, see [0035]+).
With regard to claim 8, Kang teaches that the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: updating, by the computing system, the data associated with the map based on the additional sensor data (see [0056]+).
With regard to claim 9, Pandey teaches that the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the change to the area is associated with at least one of size, geometry, height, appearance, markings, and content of at least one of a road, sign, barrier, overhead obstruction, and environmental feature (the map data layers hold information about the POI such as the environment of the POI, connectivity to the POI, changed in the topography of the geographical region, see [0032]+).
With regard to claim 10, Pandey teaches that the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: providing, by the computing system, an alert indicating the change to the area when a vehicle utilizing data associated with the map is operating in a manual mode of operation (the system including a services platform 207 which alerts related updated map, see [0033]+).
With regard to claim 11, Kang discloses system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (a computer device 700 installed on a cloud server or a plurality of device, see [0073]-[0074]+), cause the system to perform operations comprising:
Collecting and transmitting, by a computing system, a map of an environment based on sensor data of the environment (a mapping robot 120 collect data of a target place based on sensors such as Lidar, IMU, camera, and etc., generates an interior image to be used, and transmitting the data to the server 110, see [0030]-[0035]+) ;
identifying, by the computing system, a point of interest in the map associated with an area in the environment where a change to the area would affect navigation of the area (detecting of a POI changed within the target place, see [0035]+), ; and
storing, by the computing system, additional sensor data for the area (store the data received from the mapping robot, see [0037]+).
Kang is silent about determining, by a computing system, a map of an environment based on sensor data of the environment
Pandey discloses a system chronicled history information in a map. The system obtains sensor data within an area and determines a map of environment based on the sensor data (see [0024]-[0026]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kang by including to determine a map of environment based on the sensor data as taught by Pandey. The combination of Kang and Pandey is an adapted system for updating the map of an environment for accuracy.
With regard to claim 12, Kang teaches that the system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: comparing data associated with the map and the sensor data of the environment, wherein the change to the area and the additional sensor data are determined based on the comparing (collecting information on POIs in a real space environment, and automatically updating a change when there is the change as a result of a comparison with previously collected information, see [0006]-[0007] & [0040]+).
With regard to claim 13, Kang teaches that the system of claim 12, wherein the comparing data associated with the map and the sensor data of the environment comprises: projecting the data associated with the map data over the sensor data of the environment (the server construct the POI database obtained which are trained the deep learning model to recognize the attributes of a POI. Datafication is desired by predicting or recognizing whether a corresponding POIs, see [0071]-[0072]+) .
With regard to claim 4, Kang teaches that the system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to a determination that the change to the area would affect navigation, estimating, by the computing system, a value of a road condition to determine whether a vehicle can safely navigate in the area (The updated POIs changed in an area is used by the service robot 130 for autonomous driving, see [0033]+).
With regard to claim 15, Kang teaches that the system of claim 11, wherein data associated with the map includes at least one of a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the area, a point cloud of the area, images of the area, and semantic information for the area (the cloud server generates a 3D map, see [0038]+).
With regard to claim 16, Kang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system (see [0073]-[0074]+, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
Collecting and transmitting, by a computing system, a map of an environment based on sensor data of the environment (a mapping robot 120 collect data of a target place based on sensors such as Lidar, IMU, camera, and etc., generates an interior image to be used, and transmitting the data to the server 110, see [0030]-[0035]+) ;
identifying, by the computing system, a point of interest in the map associated with an area in the environment where a change to the area would affect navigation of the area (detecting of a POI changed within the target place, see [0035]+), ; and
storing, by the computing system, additional sensor data for the area (store the data received from the mapping robot, see [0037]+).
Kang is silent about determining, by a computing system, a map of an environment based on sensor data of the environment
Pandey discloses a system chronicled history information in a map. The system obtains sensor data within an area and determines a map of environment based on the sensor data (see [0024]-[0026]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kang by including to determine a map of environment based on the sensor data as taught by Pandey. The combination of Kang and Pandey is an adapted system for updating the map of an environment for accuracy.
With regard to claim 17, Kang teaches that the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise: comparing data associated with the map and the sensor data of the environment, wherein the change to the area and the additional sensor data are determined based on the comparing (collecting information on POIs in a real space environment, and automatically updating a change when there is the change as a result of a comparison with previously collected information, see [0006]-[0007] & [0040]+).
With regard to claim 18, Kang teaches that the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the comparing data associated with the map and the sensor data of the environment comprises: projecting the data associated with the map data over the sensor data of the environment (the server construct the POI database obtained which are trained the deep learning model to recognize the attributes of a POI. Datafication is desired by predicting or recognizing whether a corresponding POIs, see [0071]-[0072]+) .
With regard to claim 19, Kang teaches that the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to a determination that the change to the area would affect navigation, estimating, by the computing system, a value of a road condition to determine whether a vehicle can safely navigate in the area (The updated POIs changed in an area is used by the service robot 130 for autonomous driving, see [0033]+).
With regard to claim 20, Kang teaches that the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of wherein data associated with the map includes at least one of a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the area, a point cloud of the area, images of the area, and semantic information for the area (the cloud server generates a 3D map, see [0038]+).
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Miyatani (20240329655) discloses an information processing device which calculates position and an orientation of a movable apparatus based on measurement information of a sensor that measures an environment in surrounding of the movable apparatus (see the summary).
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662