DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 5/06/2026 is acknowledged. The application has pending claim(s) 1-18 (withdrawn claims 9-16 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is too lengthy. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The title is suggested to be amended as: -- SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING CODE BLOCK MAP BASED ON FLOOR PATTERN RECOGNITION
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1: The cross reference section needs to be updated to include the second foreign priority document KR10-2024-0013190.
Page 4: “FIGS. 3a-3d” should be -- FIGS. 3A-3D -- in order to be consistent with the labels used in the Figures.
Page 5: Similarly “FIGS. 5a and 5b” should be -- FIGS. 5A and 5B -- in order to be consistent with the labels used in the Figures.
Page 5: Similarly “FIGS. 7a and 7b” should be -- FIGS. 7A and 7B -- in order to be consistent with the labels used in the Figures.
Page 5: Similarly “FIGS. 10a and 10b” should be -- FIGS. 10A and 10B -- in order to be consistent with the labels used in the Figures.
Page 6: Similarly “FIGS. 14a and 14b” should be -- FIGS. 14A and 14B -- in order to be consistent with the labels used in the Figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 at line 2: “program for performing the method of claim 5 on a computer is recorded.” should be -- program is recorded for performing the method of claim 5 on a computer.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an image acquisition unit configured to acquire …; a unit pattern extractor configured to extract …; a code assignment unit configured to assign …; and a map generator configured to generate …” as recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the system of independent claim 1 and similarly the method of independent claim 5 and the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium of independent claim 17 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claim passes Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1 analysis
The independent claims are directed to “… extract unit patterns from patterns of the floor included in the captured image; … assign predetermined identification codes to the unit patterns; and … generate blocks corresponding to the unit patterns and generate a code block map by matching the identification codes to the blocks corresponding to the unit patterns”.
Each of the above limitations of “extract unit patterns from patterns of the floor included in the captured image”, “assign predetermined identification codes to the unit patterns”, “generate blocks corresponding to the unit patterns and generate a code block map by matching the identification codes to the blocks corresponding to the unit patterns” as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in each of the independent claims are the elements of “an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a captured image of a floor from a camera”, “a unit pattern extractor”, “a code assignment unit”, and “a map generator”, and the additional elements recited in independent claim 17 are the elements of a “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which a program for performing … on a computer is recorded”.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The step “an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a captured image of a floor from a camera” merely constitutes activity involving data gathering. Such extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Please see MPEP §2106.05(g).
The other additional elements “a unit pattern extractor”, “a code assignment unit”, “a map generator”, and “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which a program for performing … on a computer is recorded” amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the step of “an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a captured image of a floor from a camera” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not constitute significantly more than the claimed data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The other additional elements “a unit pattern extractor”, “a code assignment unit”, “a map generator”, and “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which a program for performing … on a computer is recorded” are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1, 5, and 17 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2-4 and 6-8:
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are dependent on corresponding independent claims 1 and 5 respectively and therefore include all the limitations of corresponding independent claims 1 and 5. Thus claims 2-4 and 6-8 recite “Mental Processes”. Further, claims 2-4 and 6-8 further describe:
Dependent claim 2 [and similarly dependent claim 6] merely describes “… generates rotated unit patterns by rotating the unit patterns by a predetermined angle and assigns rotation identification codes to the rotated unit patterns, and … generates blocks corresponding to the rotated unit patterns and generates the code block map by matching the rotation identification codes to the blocks corresponding to the rotated unit patterns …” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 3 [and similarly dependent claim 7] merely describes “wherein the rotation identification codes include information …”. Dependent claim 4 [and similarly dependent claim 8] merely describes “wherein the code assignment unit assigns no rotation identification code to the rotated unit patterns when …”. However, these limitations due to their broad generality are merely observational covering the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Thus, claims 2-4 and 6-8 do not recite eligible subject matter 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, 5, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyeon et al (KR 102531232 B1, the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this KR document) in view of Liang et al (CN 107670997 A, the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this CN document).
Re Claim 1: Hyeon discloses a system, the system comprising: an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a captured image of a floor from a camera (see Hyeon, Page 4/26 at lines 10-24, camera to acquire an image of the identification information on the floor of the path); a unit pattern extractor configured to extract unit patterns from patterns of the floor included in the captured image (see Hyeon, Page 2/26 at paragraph “The present invention …”, Page 4/26 at lines 10-24, recognize identification information in the form of an image or pattern [e.g. QR code]); a code assignment unit configured to assign predetermined identification codes to the unit patterns (see Hyeon, Page 2/26 at paragraph “The present invention …”, Page 4/26 at lines 10-24, map coordinates of each floor identification mark); and a map generator configured to generate blocks corresponding to the unit patterns and generate a code block map by matching the identification codes to the blocks corresponding to the unit patterns (see Hyeon, Page 2/26 at paragraph “The present invention …”, Page 4/26 at lines 10-31, coordinate recognition table and floor recognition table: map information module stores, in corresponding blocks of the tables memory respectively, the map coordinates of the plurality of coordinate identification marks and the floor identification mark).
However Hyeon fails to explicitly disclose where Liang discloses generating a code block map based on floor pattern recognition using patterns of a floor on which a robot travels (see Liang, Page 10/31 at lines 1-2, processor implemented, Figs. 1a-1b and 2a, Page 6/31 at lines 5-25, for advancing the robot).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyeon’s system using Liang’s teachings by including the robot advancement using two-dimensional code image processing to Hyeon’s exploration device processing in order to improve the advancement of the exploration device / robot (see Liang, Figs. 1a-1b and 2a, Page 6/31 at lines 5-25).
As to claim 5, the claim is the corresponding method claim to claim 1 respectively. The discussions are addressed with regard to claim 1.
As to claim 17, the claim is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claim to claim 5 respectively. The discussions are addressed with regard to claim 5. Further, Hyeon as modified by Liang further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which a program for performing the method on a computer is recorded (see Liang, Page 10/31 at lines 1-2). See claim 1 for obviousness and motivation statements.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyeon as modified by Liang, and further in view of Won (KR 20140066570 A, the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this KR document). The teachings of Hyeon as modified by Liang have been discussed above.
Re Claim 2: However Hyeon as modified by Liang fails to explicitly disclose where Won discloses wherein the code assignment unit generates rotated unit patterns by rotating the unit patterns by a predetermined angle and assigns rotation identification codes to the rotated unit patterns (see Won, Page 3/22 at lines 4-22, Page 4/22 at lines 5-6, the identification information of the two-dimensional bar code includes the azimuth information), and the map generator generates blocks corresponding to the rotated unit patterns and generates the code block map by matching the rotation identification codes to the blocks corresponding to the rotated unit patterns (see Won, Page 3/22 at lines 4-22, Page 4/22 at lines 5-6, registers each of the two-dimensional bar codes, which include the azimuth information, in the map by mapping the azimuth information and the position information of the map information with the identification information).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hyeon’s system, as modified by Liang, using Won’s teachings by including the two-dimensional code which includes the azimuth information processing to Hyeon’s [as modified by Liang] two-dimensional code processing in order to improve the navigational path processing (see Won, Page 3/22 at lines 2-22, Page 4/22 at lines 5-6).
Re Claim 3: Hyeon as modified by Liang and Won further discloses wherein the rotation identification codes include information on the predetermined angle by which the unit patterns are rotated to be the rotated unit patterns (see Won, Page 3/22 at lines 4-22, Page 4/22 at lines 5-6, the azimuth angle in a state in which the two-dimensional bar code is attached) (see Liang, Page 10/31 at lines 1-2, processor implemented, Figs. 1a-1b and 2a, Page 6/31 at lines 5-25 and more specifically 26-41). See claims 1 and 2 for obviousness and motivation statements.
Re Claim 4: Hyeon as modified by Liang and Won further discloses wherein the code assignment unit assigns no rotation identification code to the rotated unit patterns when the unit patterns are identical to the rotated unit patterns (see Won, Page 3/22 at lines 4-22, Page 4/22 at lines 5-6, the azimuth information) (see Liang, Page 10/31 at lines 1-2, processor implemented, Figs. 1a-1b and 2a, Page 6/31 at lines 5-25 and more specifically 26-43, the robot continues advancing in the same direction if no rotating angle is determined). See claims 1 and 2 for obviousness and motivation statements.
As to claim 6, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 2 respectively.
As to claim 7, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 3 respectively.
As to claim 8, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 4 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gupta et al ‘911 discloses markers affixed to a floor surface navigating an area by the robot using the markers wherein Figure 1 depicts an arrangement of markers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD KRASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1357. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thur. and every other Friday from 8am - 4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/Bernard Krasnic/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671 May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights