Detailed Office Action
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 06/24/2026. The applicant has amended claims 1-6, and 8. Claims 1-10 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 06/24/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 06/24/2026, with regard to the rejections of Claim 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 06/24/2026 have not overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections previously set forth. Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the amendment to Step S1 ”ensures that the act of positioning is no longer an abstract mathematical coordinate update on a generic processor, but a physical, kinematic navigation step actively performed and managed by the robotic hardware carrier, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As currently drafted Step S1 is directed to a data collection step, and the movement of the generic robot merely performs the data collection. Mere instructions to collect data using a generic robot cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, regarding the Applicant’s argument that the amendment to step S2 “moves far beyond a generic computer execution of an abstract idea”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As currently drafted, “producing a coverage area scanned by the robot at the first moment and a coverage area scanned by the robot at the second moment…” is merely directed to the collection of data, which is an insignificant extra solution activity. The use of a generic robot to implement instructions to collect data cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, because the claims only recite mental processes and insignificant extra solution activities, there are no additional elements that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the claim cannot provide an improvement to the technology as an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(a) Section II, “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea…is not an improvement in technology”).
See below for detailed rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “proceeding” limitation appears to be missing the word “to” as in “proceeding, by the robot, to two positions…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
101 Analysis - With respect to Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed towards a method which is directed to the statutory category of a process. Therefore Claims 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis- Step 2A Prong One:
Regarding Prong One 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 process.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites, inter alai:
“A method for a robot to improve the accuracy of an obstacle labeling, comprising:
S1, proceeding, by the robot, two positionings of the robot at different moments,
and then generating, by the robot, positioning poses of the two positionings on a grid map respectively at a first moment and a second moment of the different moments;
S2, producing a coverage area scanned by the robot at the first moment and a coverage area scanned by the robot at the second moment respectively according to positions of the two positionings at the first moment and the second moment,
calculating confidence coefficients of the two positionings, and
adjusting the coverage area of the first moment and the coverage area of the second moment according to the confidence coefficients;
S3, interpolating the positioning poses at the first moment and the second moment to obtain an interpolated pose, and constructing a closed graph according to the positioning poses at the first moment and the second moment, the interpolated pose and the adjusted coverage area of the first moment and the adjusted coverage area of the second moment; and
S4, obtaining a grid occupied by the closed graph on the grid map and modifying the obstacle labeling according to the grid occupied by the closed graph on the grid map and the area of the closed graph.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
For example, “calculating”, “adjusting”, “interpolating”, “constructing” and “obtaining” in the context of this claim, all encompass a person looking at available data and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either manually or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As drafted, the above claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), that are merely completed via generic computer components. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
Regarding Prong Two 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”):
Claim 1 recites, inter alai:
“A method for a robot to improve the accuracy of an obstacle labeling, comprising:
S1, proceeding, by the robot, two positionings of the robot at different moments,
and then generating, by the robot, positioning poses of the two positionings on a grid map respectively at a first moment and a second moment of the different moments;
S2, producing a coverage area scanned by the robot at the first moment and a coverage area scanned by the robot at the second moment respectively according to positions of the two positionings at the first moment and the second moment,
calculating confidence coefficients of the two positionings, and
adjusting the coverage area of the first moment and the coverage area of the second moment according to the confidence coefficients;
S3, interpolating the positioning poses at the first moment and the second moment to obtain an interpolated pose, and constructing a closed graph according to the positioning poses at the first moment and the second moment, the interpolated pose and the adjusted coverage area of the first moment and the adjusted coverage area of the second moment; and
S4, obtaining a grid occupied by the closed graph on the grid map and modifying the obstacle labeling according to the grid occupied by the closed graph on the grid map and the area of the closed graph.”
For the following reason(s), 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 “proceeding, by the robot, two positionings of the robot at different moments, and then generating, by the robot, positioning poses of the two positionings on a grid map respectively at a first moment and a second moment of the different moments” and “producing a coverage area scanned by the robot …”, these limitations merely describe the collection of data and the sending and receiving of data, which is in insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims do 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 to 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 generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception or an insignificant extra solution activity using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the act of collecting data and displaying data amounts to no more than merely storing and displaying information of the exception and thus is an extra-solution activity. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, no claim further adds a limitation that introduces any practical applications to the claimed invention, the dependent claims merely add more mental process, mathematical concepts, and post-solution activities and are thus not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 objected to as being rejected under 35 U.S.C 101, but would be allowable if the 101 deficiencies are overcome.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH A YANOSKA whose telephone number is (703)756-5891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am to 5:00pm (Pacific Time).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/JOSEPH ANDERSON YANOSKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights