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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 August 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 is recited to be dependent on claim 11, which is dependent on independent claim 1. The Examiner believes this is a typographical error as claim 14 proceeds independent claim 13. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret claim 14 to be dependent on independent claim 13.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1-22 are directed to a method and a system. Therefore, claim(s) 1-22 are within at least one of the four statutory categories, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
If the claims recite at least one statutory category of invention, the claims require further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception of invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 recite the following (bolded) abstract limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“A computer-implemented method for identifying roads carried out by a system including at least one processor configured to execute instructions and a user-interface device having a display screen, the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, an aerial image of a portion of global terrain;
displaying, by the at least one processor, the aerial image on the display screen of the user-interface device;
receiving, by the at least one processor, user-input road information as a user input via the user-interface device;
identifying, by the at least one processor, a new road or preferred route in the portion of global terrain based on the aerial image and the user-input road information; and
updating, by the at least one processor, a navigational database to include the new road or preferred route.”
Wherein the claimed limitations are functions / processes that can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, in the mind, identifying and updating a new road based on an image and information.
If the claims recite a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claims require further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Claim(s) 1 and 13 additionally recite the following (underlined) additional elements (or limitations analogous to):
“A computer-implemented method for identifying roads carried out by a system including at least one processor configured to execute instructions and a user-interface device having a display screen, the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, an aerial image of a portion of global terrain;
displaying, by the at least one processor, the aerial image on the display screen of the user-interface device;
receiving, by the at least one processor, user-input road information as a user input via the user-interface device;
identifying, by the at least one processor, a new road or preferred route in the portion of global terrain based on the aerial image and the user-input road information; and
updating, by the at least one processor, a navigational database to include the new road or preferred route.”
Claim 13 additionally recites:
“An interactive user system for identifying roads unknown to a server, the system comprising:
a display device;
a user input device;
a computer memory storing instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:”
In regards to receiving amounts to extra-solution activity, pre-solution data gathering in this case. The displaying amounts to extra-solution activity, post-solution data output in this case. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claimed processor, system, display device, user input device, and computer memory are additional elements that individually and in combination fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely apply the abstract idea to one or more generic computing components (aka “apply it”; see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The functions of these additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. receiving, processing, transmitting data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using one or more generic components.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception, and require further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to the previously identified extra-solution activities, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Additionally, collecting and displaying information has been indicated by the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) in MPEP 2106.05(g) is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
The additionally claimed processor, system, display device, user input device, and computer memory are recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to no more than additional elements of instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim 4 and 16 recites further receiving new road metadata which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity regarding pre-solution data gathering, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see 2106.05(g)).
Claims 6 and 18 recite determining and processing, claims 7 and 19 recite comparing and updating, respectively, which are functions / processes that can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind and therefore are abstract ideas. For example, determining and processing, in the mind, positions based on information. Additionally, comparing and updating, in the mind, new roads to existing roads.
Claims 8 and 20 recite receiving and transmitting which are extra-solution activities, pre-solution data gathering and post-solution data output, respectively. See Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claims 9, 10, 21, and 22 recite identifying which is a functions / process that can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind and therefore are abstract ideas. For example, identifying, in the mind, a feature and intersection.
Claim 12 recites snapping the user-input road information is a form of extra-solution activity, post-solution data output in this case. Wherein Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) indicates collection, analysis and displaying of data is well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 14, 15, and 17, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (e.g. further characterizing the data within the system and identifications made with the utilization thereof). These claims also act to further characterize the types data (aforementioned extra-solution activity) and types of data transmitted (additional extra-solution activity). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a) (see, for example, [0046], [0047], [0079]). For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 15, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-22 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 10-12, 13, 18-19, and 22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (20200300641; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a computer-implemented method for identifying roads carried out by a system including at least one processor configured to execute instructions and a user-interface device having a display screen (Li: Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, an aerial image of a portion of global terrain (Li: “road network images automatically based on historical road network images and current maps or high-resolution aerial images” ¶ 37);
displaying, by the at least one processor, the aerial image on the display screen of the user-interface device (Li: “output information (e.g., one or more network images of new roads, a request message for choosing a map image) to a user” ¶ 63);
receiving, by the at least one processor, user-input road information as a user input via the user-interface device (Li: “The I/O module 430 may be configured to enable a user to interact with the processing engine 112. In some embodiments, a user may set hyper-parameters ... a request message for choosing a map image) to a user” ¶ 63, see also ¶ 70);
identifying, by the at least one processor, a new road or preferred route in the portion of global terrain based on the aerial image and the user-input road information (Li: “the image processing unit 510 may process a road map or a road network image by performing various operations to determine new roads on the road map image or the road network image” ¶ 69, see also ¶ 68, 70); and
updating, by the at least one processor, a navigational database to include the new road or preferred route (Li: “The storage unit 530 may be configured to store data related to the determination of new roads” ¶ 72).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user input is received as location coordinates collected by the user-interface device (Li: “The positioning device 170 may determine information associated with an object, for example, one or more of the user terminal 130 ... The location may be in the form of coordinates, such as, a latitude coordinate and a longitude coordinate, etc.” ¶ 52).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining global position coordinates of the user-input road information (Li: “the positioning device 170 may be a global positioning system (GPS)” ¶ 52); and
processing a portion of the aerial image corresponding to the global position coordinates to identify the new road (Li: “A passenger may receive new roads on a map via the user terminal 130. In some embodiments, the user terminal 130 may obtain a road map from the processing engine 112 ... communicate with the positioning device 170 for locating the position of the passenger and/or the user terminal 130, and determining a relative distance from his/her position to a road” ¶ 47).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
comparing the new road to existing roads in the navigational database (Li: “the training unit 520 may compare the processing result with the reference” ¶ 105),
wherein updating the navigational database includes updating an existing road in the navigational database with the new road or preferred route (Li: “If the preset condition is satisfied, the process 900 may proceed to 940, and a trained machine learning model may be determined” ¶ 105, see also ¶ 104).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising identifying at least one intersection between the new road and an existing road in the navigational database (Li: “Relative positions between two ends of each of the second plurality of roads and an origin of the coordinate system may be determined” ¶ 83).
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the new road or preferred route in the portion of global terrain based on the aerial image includes comparing the user-input road information to a candidate road in the aerial image (Li: “enable a user to interact with the processing engine 112. In some embodiments, a user may set hyper-parameters” ¶ 63, “compare the processing result with the reference, and determine whether a preset condition is satisfied ... If the preset condition is not satisfied, another map may be input into the machine learning model, and one or more parameters (e.g., one or more weights) of the machine learning model may be updated based on the input” ¶ 105).
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising snapping the user-input road information to a closest candidate road in the aerial image (Li: “configured to further extract one or more features from the output (i.e., the image A 815) of the first pair of convolution layer and pooling layer 810, and generate a second feature image ... the second pair of convolution layer and pooling layer 820 may be similar to or the same as the first pair of convolution layer and pooling layer 810. Merely for illustration purposes, the size of the image B 825 may be one fourth the size of the map image 805” ¶ 93, see also ¶ 94).
In regards to claim(s) 13, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 1, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 18, 19, and 22, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 6, 7 and 10, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
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 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) 2, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Feigen (20010041961).
Regarding claim 2, Li fails to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user input is received as a user-traced overlay of the aerial image on the display screen of the user-interface device (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Feigen).
While Li remains silent regarding the user input is received as a user-traced overlay of the aerial image on the display screen of the user-interface device, in a similar field of endeavor, Feigen teaches the claim limitation of a user-traced overlay of the aerial image (Feigen: “A map image is displayed on the display of the navigation system and the end-user uses the input panel to draw a shape overlaid on the map image. The navigation programming then defines a preferred area corresponding to the area encompassed within the shape on the map image” ¶ 59, see also ¶ 60). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the route identification system of Li so that it also includes the element of a user-traced overlay of the aerial image, as taught by Feigen, in order to improve map area selection and analysis (Feigen: ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Adler teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the user input is received as location coordinates collected by the user-interface device (Li: “The positioning device 170 may determine information associated with an object, for example, one or more of the user terminal 130 ... The location may be in the form of coordinates, such as, a latitude coordinate and a longitude coordinate, etc.” ¶ 52).
In regards to claim(s) 14, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 2, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Claim(s) 4-5, 8-9, 16-17, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Adler (20210012108).
Regarding claim 4, Li fails to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving new road metadata including additional information associated with the new road or preferred route (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Adler).
While Li remains silent regarding receiving new road metadata including additional information associated with the new road or preferred route, in a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches the claim limitation of receiving new road metadata including information associated with the new road (Adler: “receiving new road metadata including additional information associated with the new road or preferred route” ¶ 127). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the route identification system of Li so that it also includes the element of receiving new metadata, as taught by Adler, in order to improve navigational assistance (Adler: ¶ 133).
Regarding claim 5, Li fails to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the new road metadata includes a natural resource or energy industry feature reachable by the new road or preferred route (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Adler).
While Li remains silent regarding the new road metadata includes a natural resource or energy industry feature reachable by the new road or preferred route, in a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches the claim limitation of the new road metadata includes a natural resource or energy industry feature (Adler: “such metadata may include a road surface type, a road surface quality, a road width, a capability to carry a vehicle type, a photograph of the road, a destination reachable via the road (such as an oilfield well site) or another oilfield feature accessible via the road” ¶ 128). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the route identification system of Li so that it also includes the element of receiving new metadata including a natural resource or energy industry feature, as taught by Adler, in order to improve navigational assistance (Adler: ¶ 133).
Regarding claim 8, Li fails to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a request from a user device for navigational instructions including a destination reachable by use of the new road or preferred route; and
transmitting at least a portion of navigational data stored in the navigational database to the user device to provide the navigational instructions (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Adler).
While Li remains silent regarding receiving a request from a user device for navigational instructions including a destination reachable by use of the new road or preferred route and transmitting at least a portion of navigational data stored in the navigational database to the user device to provide the navigational instructions, in a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches the claim limitation of receiving a request for navigational instruction and transmitting at least a portion of navigation data to provide navigational instructions (Adler “capture additional information concerning the road that may be of interest to a user of a navigation platform. In embodiments, the systems and methods are described in the context of their application to the identification of private or leased roads within oilfield regions such that oilfield workers may benefit from improved and more efficient navigation in these areas” ¶ 34, see also ¶ 35, 79). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the route identification system of Li so that it also includes the element of receiving a request and transmitting navigational instructions, as taught by Adler, in order to improve navigational assistance (Adler: ¶ 133).
Regarding claim 9, Li fails to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising identifying at least one natural resource or energy industry feature reachable by the new road or preferred route (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Adler).
While Li remains silent regarding identifying at least one natural resource or energy industry feature reachable by the new road or preferred route, in a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches the claim limitation of identifying at least one natural resource or energy industry feature (Adler: “such metadata may include a road surface type, a road surface quality, a road width, a capability to carry a vehicle type, a photograph of the road, a destination reachable via the road (such as an oilfield well site) or another oilfield feature accessible via the road” ¶ 128). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the route identification system of Li so that it also includes the element of identifying at least one natural resource or energy industry feature, as taught by Adler, in order to improve navigational assistance (Adler: ¶ 133).
In regards to claim(s) 16-17, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 4-5, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 20-21, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 8-9, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Van Sickle et al. (20200364247) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of imagery processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663