DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-16 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/16/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Non-English documents have been considered in as much as the drawings and translated portions provided therein (See MPEP 609).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 12-13 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 12 recites the limitation "the mobile object" in line 3. It is not clear what mobile object this is referring to. In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a mobile object" in line 4. It is not clear if this is the same as “the mobile object in line 4. In addition, any subsequent recitation of “the mobile object” is unclear was to which instance it is referring to.
Claim 13 depend on this claim and suffer from the same issues.
All dependent claims of this/these claims(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising:
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as:
a storage unit configured to store unique identifiers allocated to a plurality of first spatial subareas with a first size in a three-dimensional space and unique identifiers allocated to a plurality of second spatial subareas with a second size smaller than the first size in the first spatial subareas; and
a control unit configured to store spatial information on internal states of the plurality of first spatial subareas and the plurality of second spatial subareas in the storage unit in association with the corresponding unique identifiers.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 1 recites An information processing device. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim limitations in claim 1:
a storage unit configured to store unique identifiers allocated to a plurality of first spatial subareas with a first size in a three-dimensional space and unique identifiers allocated to a plurality of second spatial subareas with a second size smaller than the first size in the first spatial subareas; and
a control unit configured to store spatial information on internal states of the plurality of first spatial subareas and the plurality of second spatial subareas in the storage unit in association with the corresponding unique identifiers;
are judicial exception of mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example, a human can observe, imagine, and visualize, and even record down, a scene/area according to these processes.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claims 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 additional elements “An information processing device comprising: at least one processor or circuit configured to function as”. The An information processing device comprising: at least one processor or circuit configured to function as is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the processing and determining steps. The generically recited An information processing device comprising: at least one processor or circuit configured to function as merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity using a generic or general-purpose processor.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount 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.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements “The An information processing device comprising: at least one processor or circuit configured to function as” 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 reevaluated in Step 2B. There is no additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
With respect to claims 2-16,
Similar to the analysis of claim 1. Step 1: These claims are within one of the four statutory categories. Step 2A, Prong One: the recited limitations of these claims are mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B: there are no additional elements that are integrated into a practical application and sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by IGUCHI et al. (US 20210168402 a reference in IDS 7/16/2024).
Regarding claim 1, 15, 16, IGUCHI et al. teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing following processes;
An information processing device comprising:
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as:
(at least figs. 1-4 [0113]-[0175] discussed three-dimensional data encoding and decoding system includes three-dimensional data encoding system 4601, three-dimensional data decoding system 4602, sensor terminal 4603, and external connector 4604, in particular [0122]-[0126] discussed processor, memory, computer system)
a storage unit configured to store unique identifiers allocated to a plurality of first spatial subareas with a first size in a three-dimensional space and unique identifiers allocated to a plurality of second spatial subareas with a second size smaller than the first size in the first spatial subareas; and
a control unit configured to store spatial information on internal states of the plurality of first spatial subareas and the plurality of second spatial subareas in the storage unit in association with the corresponding unique identifiers;
(at least figs. 1-4 [0113]-[0175] discussed three-dimensional data encoding and decoding system includes three-dimensional data encoding system 4601, three-dimensional data decoding system 4602, sensor terminal 4603, and external connector 4604, in particular [0122]-[0126] discussed processor, memory, computer system; figs. 40, 47-48 [0382]-[0385] [0427]-[0446] discussed point cloud data into slices and tiles, identifiers);
Regarding claim 2, IGUCHI et al. teaches:
wherein the control unit generates the spatial information of the first spatial subareas including the plurality of second spatial subareas on the basis of the spatial information of the plurality of second spatial subareas;
(at least figs. 1-4 [0113]-[0175] discussed three-dimensional data encoding and decoding system includes three-dimensional data encoding system 4601, three-dimensional data decoding system 4602, sensor terminal 4603, and external connector 4604, in particular [0122]-[0126] discussed processor, memory, computer system; figs. 40, 47-48 [0382]-[0385] [0427]-[0446] discussed point cloud data into slices and tiles, identifiers; in particular at least [0461]);
Regarding claim 3, IGUCHI et al. teaches:
wherein, when the spatial information of at least one of the plurality of second spatial subareas indicates that there is an object, the control unit generates information indicating that there is an object as the spatial information of the first spatial subarea including the plurality of second spatial subareas;
(at least figs. 1-4 [0113]-[0175] discussed three-dimensional data encoding and decoding system includes three-dimensional data encoding system 4601, three-dimensional data decoding system 4602, sensor terminal 4603, and external connector 4604, in particular [0122]-[0126] discussed processor, memory, computer system; figs. 40, 47-48 [0382]-[0385] [0427]-[0446] discussed point cloud data into slices and tiles, identifiers; in particular at least [0606]-[0615]);
Regarding claim 4, IGUCHI et al. teaches:
wherein, when the spatial information of all the plurality of second spatial subareas indicates that there is no object, the control unit generates information indicating that there is no object as the spatial information of the first spatial subarea including the plurality of second spatial subareas;
(at least figs. 1-4 [0113]-[0175] discussed three-dimensional data encoding and decoding system includes three-dimensional data encoding system 4601, three-dimensional data decoding system 4602, sensor terminal 4603, and external connector 4604, in particular [0122]-[0126] discussed processor, memory, computer system; figs. 40, 47-48 [0382]-[0385] [0427]-[0446] discussed point cloud data into slices and tiles, identifiers; in particular at least [0606]-[0615]);
Regarding claim 5, IGUCHI et al. teaches:
wherein the control unit determines whether to generate the spatial information on an object in each of the plurality of second spatial subareas in the first spatial subarea on the basis of the spatial information on whether there is an object in the first spatial subarea;
(at least figs. 1-4 [0113]-[0175] discussed three-dimensional data encoding and decoding system includes three-dimensional data encoding system 4601, three-dimensional data decoding system 4602, sensor terminal 4603, and external connector 4604, in particular [0122]-[0126] discussed processor, memory, computer system; figs. 40, 47-48 [0382]-[0385] [0427]-[0446] discussed point cloud data into slices and tiles, identifiers; in particular at least [0606]-[0615] [0637]);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IGUCHI et al. (US 20210168402 a reference in IDS 7/16/2024) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TERADA (US 20210180987 a reference in IDS 7/16/2024).
Regarding claim 12, IGUCHI et al. does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as, a route generation unit configured to generate route information on a moving route of the mobile object on the basis of the spatial information stored in the storage unit and type information of a mobile object;
However, TERADA teaches:
wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as, a route generation unit configured to generate route information on a moving route of the mobile object on the basis of the spatial information stored in the storage unit and type information of a mobile object;
(at least [0088]-[0098]) for automatic driving ([0088]-[0098])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of IGUCHI et al. with wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as, a route generation unit configured to generate route information on a moving route of the mobile object on the basis of the spatial information stored in the storage unit and type information of a mobile object as taught by TERADA for automatic driving.
Regarding claim 13, IGUCHI et al. teaches:
wherein the mobile object includes an autonomous mobility;.
(at least figs. 1-4 [0113]-[0175] discussed three-dimensional data encoding and decoding system includes three-dimensional data encoding system 4601, three-dimensional data decoding system 4602, sensor terminal 4603, and external connector 4604, in particular [0122]-[0126] discussed processor, memory, computer system; figs. 40, 47-48 [0382]-[0385] [0427]-[0446] discussed point cloud data into slices and tiles, identifiers; in particular at least [0447] [0463])
In addition and in the alterative, TERADA teaches:
wherein the mobile object includes an autonomous mobility ;
(at least [0088]-[0098]) for automatic driving ([0088]-[0098])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of IGUCHI et al. with wherein the mobile object includes an autonomous mobility as taught by TERADA for automatic driving.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656