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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on April 27, 2026.
Claims 1-4, 8-14, and 16 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Amendments to the Specification:
The amendments to the specification, specifically amending the title from “TRACK SELECTION IN ENVIRONMENT RECONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS” to “MAP GENERATION” are not accepted and, therefore, not entered. The MPEP requires that the title must be clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP 606.01. The proposed amended title is not more clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed than the current title.
A suggested amendment to the title is, “TRACK SELECTION IN ENVIRONMENT RECONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS FOR MAP GENERATION”.
Regarding the outstanding Claim Objections:
The outstanding objection to claims 11-13 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to those claims adding “configured” to each of the preambles.
Regarding the outstanding Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
The outstanding 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 9 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments deleting the word “the” and adding the term “one or more” before “additional tracks” in line 3, thus correcting the antecedent basis issue.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“B. Independent Claim 1…has been improperly characterized as an abstract idea.”
“a. Claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea.”
“b. Claim 1 is integrated into a practical application.”
“c. Claim 1 improves a technical field.”
“d. Claim 1 solves a problem rooted in computer technology and software.”
“C. Independent claims 10 and 16 … are patent eligible for at least similar reasons discussed in connection with claim 1, above.”
“D. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 … are at least patent eligible under section 101 for at least…being dependent on a patent eligible base claim.”
See Remarks filed on April 27, 2026 on pages 11-18.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiners are bound by the guidance provided by the USPTO. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the identified claim limitations can practically be performed in the human mind and are therefore considered to fall into the category of mental processes under abstract ideas. The claim limitations are analogous to claim 2 in Example 47 from the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. In claim 2 from Example 47, the following limitations are considered to be abstract ideas, “(b) discretizing…the continuous training data to generate input data”, “(d) detecting one or more anomalies in a data set using the trained ANN (artificial neural network)”, and “(e) analyzing the one or more detected anomalies using the trained ANN to generate anomaly data”. The explanation states, “the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps (b), (d), and (e) is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.” See July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, page 7.
The current claim limitations are analogous to these limitations that were found to be abstract ideas. The current claim limitations, in claim 1, considered to be an abstract idea are: “grouping track data within a region into a plurality of clusters based, at least, on orientation corresponding to tracks represented by the track data”; “determining one or more buckets corresponding to reference segments for individual clusters of the plurality of clusters”; “selecting, from a first bucket, a first track of the track data”; “causing the first track to be further selected for the one or more buckets where a respective track count is below a threshold”; “incrementing, responsive to selecting the track for the first bucket and the one or more buckets, the respective track count”; and “automatically generating a reconstruction of at least a portion of the region based at least on the selected tracks for the one or more buckets”. Similar to claim 2 in Example 47, these limitations involve generally detecting and analyzing data.
Further, the newly added claim language, “the reconstruction comprising a machine-readable representation formatted for processing by a navigation or localization system” is considered to be an additional element under the category of “apply it” by applying the abstract idea for use with a generic computer processor.
Similar to claim 2 in Example 47, current claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in the current claim, “computer-implemented” and “the reconstruction comprising a machine-readable representation formatted for processing by a navigation or localization system” are recited at a high level of generality , and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Further they are recited as being performed by a computer, which is recited at a high level of generality. The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application.
Similar to claim 2 in Example 47, current claim 1 does not improve a technical field nor does it solve a problem rooted in computer technology and software. Applicant argues that, “amended claim 1 is directed toward a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in computer technology, namely, how to efficiently select and utilize large-scale, multi-pass sensor track data to generate accurate and computationally efficient environment reconstructions.” See Remarks in Response filed April 27, 2026 on page 17. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasoning analogous to the reasoning in claim 2 of Example 47, it merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Applying analogous reasoning used in claim 2 of Example 47 to the current claims, the conclusion is that the current claim recites an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, does not improve a technical field, and does not solve a problem rooted in computer technology and software.
The same reasoning is applied to analogous independent claims 10 and 16. Further, due to all dependent claims failing to contain claim limitations that contain either a practical application or that amount to significantly more, either taken individually or as a whole, all dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20, their 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained.
The outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections for claims 1-20 are maintained but are slightly modified in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 27, 2026 have been fully considered. In view of Applicant’s amendments, arguments, and the Examiner’s updated search, the outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn.
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.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception 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 following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Claim 10 is directed to a processor (i.e., an apparatus).
Claim 16 is directed to a system comprising one or more processors (i.e., an apparatus).
Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 16 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim (representing claims 10 and 16) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
grouping track data within a region into a plurality of clusters based, at least, on orientation corresponding to tracks represented by the track data;
determining one or more buckets corresponding to reference segments for individual clusters of the plurality of clusters;
selecting, from a first bucket, a first track of the track data;
causing the first track to be further selected for the one or more buckets where a respective track count is below a threshold;
incrementing, responsive to selecting the track for the first bucket and the one or more buckets, the respective track count; and
automatically generating a reconstruction of at least a portion of the region based at least on the selected tracks for the one or more buckets, the reconstruction comprising a machine-readable representation formatted for processing by a navigation or localization system.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “grouping track data within a region into a plurality of clusters based, at least, on orientation corresponding to tracks represented by the track data; determining one or more buckets corresponding to reference segments for individual clusters of the plurality of clusters; selecting, from a first bucket, a first track of the track data; causing the first track to be further selected for the one or more buckets where a respective track count is below a threshold; incrementing, responsive to selecting the track for the first bucket and the one or more buckets, the respective track count; and automatically generating a reconstruction of at least a portion of the region” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing these limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
grouping track data within a region into a plurality of clusters based, at least, on orientation corresponding to tracks represented by the track data;
determining one or more buckets corresponding to reference segments for individual clusters of the plurality of clusters;
selecting, from a first bucket, a first track of the track data;
causing the first track to be further selected for the one or more buckets where a respective track count is below a threshold;
incrementing, responsive to selecting the track for the first bucket and the one or more buckets, the respective track count; and
automatically generating a reconstruction of at least a portion of the region based at least on the selected tracks for the one or more buckets, the reconstruction comprising a machine-readable representation formatted for processing by a navigation or localization system.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of a “computer-implemented method” and “the reconstruction comprising a machine-readable representation formatted for processing by a navigation or localization system”, they merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose mapping environment. The computer-implemented method is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the abstract idea steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer (i.e., a computer-implemented method) to perform the “grouping track data within a region into a plurality of clusters based, at least, on orientation corresponding to tracks represented by the track data; determining one or more buckets corresponding to reference segments for individual clusters of the plurality of clusters; selecting, from a first bucket, a first track of the track data; causing the first track to be further selected for the one or more buckets where a respective track count is below a threshold; incrementing, responsive to selecting the track for the first bucket and the one or more buckets, the respective track count; and automatically generating a reconstruction of at least a portion of the region, based at least on the selected tracks for the one or more buckets” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of a “computer-implemented method” and “the reconstruction comprising a machine-readable representation formatted for processing by a navigation or localization system”, the Examiner submits that this additional element is a generic computer and is insignificant extra-solution activities at an “apply-it” level.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a computer-implemented method” and “the reconstruction comprising a machine-readable representation formatted for processing by a navigation or localization system”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer within a mapping system. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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 2-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
The same reasoning is applied to analogous claims 10-20.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anastassov, Publication US 2022/0163347, discloses identifying special areas with significant vehicle activities that do not represent established roads (e.g., construction areas). The approach involves, for example, retrieving probe data collected from sensors of probe devices traveling within a geographic area including at least one geographic partition. The approach also involves dividing each of the at least one geographic partition into grid cells. The approach further involves, for each grid cell, detecting directional groupings of the probe data. The directional groupings comprise probes of the probe data that share a respective common direction of travel. The approach further involves detecting a set of grid cells with a count of the directional groupings that is above a count threshold. The approach further involves designating an area associated with the set of grid cells as an unconstrained area or a sub-area of the unconstrained area. The approach further involves providing the unconstrained area, the sub-area, or a combination thereof as a mapping data output.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
