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 .
Response to Amendment
The 08/14/2026 amendments to the Claims are entered. In the amendment, claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, and 13 stand amended, and claims 2, 8, and 14 stand canceled. No claims were newly added or withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s 08/14/2026 Remarks; they are convincing in light of the amendments made. Therefore, the prior art rejections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Further, the claims are now allowable over the prior art. See the Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for indicating allowable subject matter below for further explanation.
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.
Claim 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
The Examiner will now proceed through the two-prong test laid out in MPEP § 2106 on claim 1 to illustrate how the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is directed toward the judicial exception. However, the other independent and dependent claims are also directed to a judicial exception unless otherwise specified.
Firstly, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the present claim is a way of aligning two maps using a series of localized transforms on a mesh imposed over one map.
Regarding Step 1, the present claim is directed to a device because it describes parts of a robot and their function. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Regarding Step 2A, the present claim recites a judicial exception because it is (1) directed to an abstract idea; and (2) it does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The present claim is (1) directed to an abstract idea, particularly a mental process. A mental process is any concept that could be interpreted as being performed by the human mind or by a human mind with a physical aid. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are directed to an abstract idea:
“produce one or more . . . readable maps during navigation of the robot along a route . . . ;
impose a mesh over the one or more . . . maps, the mesh comprising a plurality of cells, each cell comprising at least one shared vertex with another adjacent cell;
align the one or more . . . maps to a second . . . map based on a first transformation, . . . [the second map] having a second coordinate system origin distinct from the first coordinate system origin, wherein the first transformation is determined by aligning at least one shared object present in both the one or more . . . maps and the second . . . map; and
adjust the mesh based on the first transformation, adjustments to the mesh include calculating an affine transform for each cell which corresponds to the first transformation of pixels within each cell, the affine transform preserving a spatial mapping of the pixels within each respective cell.”
These limitations, when broadly interpreted, do not preclude a human from, in their mind or with a pen and piece of paper, producing a map, drawing a mesh over the map, changing the map to match a second map based on a feature in the map, and adjusting the mesh to compensate for the adjustment by calculating an affine transform. Further, a human could perform such a transform on a small number of pixels using a pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is directed to a mental process because of the high level of generality with which the limitations are recited, and analysis proceeds to step (2).
The present claim also (2) fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In a computing environment, a mental process may be integrated into a practical application where the claim goes “beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment . . . .” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Claim 1 attempts to integrate the exception into a practical application with the following limitations:
“A robot, comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions stored thereon; and
a controller configured to execute the computer readable instructions . . .
one or more computer readable maps . . . ;
a second computer readable map . . .”
However, does not appear to the Examiner as more than generally linking the mental process defined in step 2A to a generic robotic computing environment. In other words, the generic recitation of a robot, the maps being computer-readable, and so on merely apply the judicial exception to well-known computer parts. Therefore, the present claim does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The present claim reciting to a mental process generically applied on computer hardware, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements of computer components to an abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when, considered as a whole, the claim appears to be “[s]imply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.” MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A). Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“[the map is produced] during navigation of the robot along a route based on sensor data collected by the robot . . .
[the second map is produced] using their respective sensors during autonomous navigation . . . .”
However, these elements appear to be appending the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of gathering data, at a high level of generality, to the mental process of the present claim. Therefore, the present claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner notes that while the above analysis was applied to claim 1 in particular, further steps recited in the other independent and dependent claims all feature similar issues that bar them from being considered eligible subject matter unless specified below.
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are 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.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the limitation "the first transformation of pixels within each cell" in the last clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has elected to interpret the claim in light of [0090]-[0092] of the Specification, which states that the affine transform is generated based on transforming the pixels/points that comprise the map.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach, alone or in combination, the entirety of independent claims 1, 7, or 13. These three claims, containing substantially the same subject matter, shall be referred to collectively as “the independent claims.”
In particular, the independent claims do not teach the following:
“impose a mesh over the one or more computer readable maps, the mesh comprising a plurality of cells, each cell comprising at least one shared vertex with another adjacent cell; . . .
adjustments to the mesh include calculating an affine transform for each cell which corresponds to the first transformation of pixels within each cell . . . “
As indicated by Applicant in the Remarks, Dhayalkar does not teach imposing a mesh as disclosed by the independent claims, nor does it teach aligning the maps based on localized affine transformations performed on each cell of the mesh. Rather, Dhayalkar teaches calculating a single rigid transformation for the entire map. Applicant’s invention represents an improvement over Dhayalkar because the series of localized transformations better aligns the two maps.
Other prior art teaches performing localized transformations on a mesh imposed over maps, but they all fail to read on the independent claims for various reasons.
For example, Miyagawa, relied upon in previous Office Actions, teaches performing an affine transformation to match the contents of a local map to a server-based map. The transformation is performed for each cell in a mesh imposed over one of the maps. However, the transformation causes discontinuities to appear between cells in the mesh, which does not read on the mesh cells sharing vertices with one another as required by the independent claims. Furthermore, Miyagawa is directed to matching sensor data, which may or may not comprise pixels, to a vector-based road map. It would not have been obvious to combine Miyagawa with Dhayalkar because the map formats are different. Nor would it have made sense to convert the map of Dhayalkar to a vector format, then re-convert it to a raster format, right before performing the raster-vector map matching of Miyagawa. Doing so would unnecessarily complicate Miyagawa’s map matching process.
Other prior art, like US 20110280453 A1 to Chen, Ching-Chien et al., teaches performing a local piecewise map matching process known as “rubber sheeting” in which transforms are determined for features within each cell of a mesh. However, Chen’s disclosure relies on the existence of a third vector map that acts as “glue” to convert from raster to vector, then back to the raster of the other map. Even if this were a reasonable combination to make, Chen’s rubber sheeting process is not the same as the present invention. Per [0228] of Chen, rubber sheeting requires that the mesh be generated on both images, then calculating the affine transformation to convert the vertices of one mesh to the other, distorting the area within. This is the reverse of the operation of the present invention, which calculates the transformation to align the map pixels, then adjusts the mesh based on that transformation.
Furthermore, neither Miyagawa nor Chen are analogous to Dhayalkar. Both references do not mention that the first and second map are each generated by a robot (the same one or different) during autonomous driving. Rather, at least one map in each reference is a top-down image of a large area encompassing many roads and blocks. Dhayalkar, like most robot navigation systems in the prior art, teaches generating a map from the point of view of the robot doing the traveling. While the figures of Dhayalkar show a top-down view of the generated map, such a map in reality is a collection of sensor data spatially related to where it was detected, instead of a literal image of an area from above.
For at least these reasons, the independent claims are allowable over the prior art. The claims will be in condition for allowance once the § 101 and § 112 rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Queiroz, Tiago et al. US 12287639 B1. Floor Plan Repair System For Autonomous Mobile Devices.
Nakai, Mikio. US 20220290996 A1. INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND PROGRAM.
Uno, Hiroshi. JP 2007034145 A. MAP SUPERIMPOSING SYSTEM AND METHOD.
Chiu, Ching-Sheng et al. Weighted coordinates transformation method for mapping with non-homogeneous space partition. Pergamon, Computers & Geosciences 29, 14 April 2002. Last accessed 09/17/2026, URL included in attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights