DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claim 1 has been examined in this application. Claim 1 is amended. This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 8/29/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application CN202311235494.7 filed in China on 09/22/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 8/29/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 7 under the heading “I. Claim Objections”), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 7-9 under the heading “II. Rejection under 35 USC § 112”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 101 (presented on p. 9-10 under the heading “III. Rejection under 35 USC § 101”), the arguments and amendments are not persuasive. The arguments (p. 9) recite the amendments where the method is performed by a computer device, and wherein on the basis of the skeleton line similarity and the local similarity, an operation is performed on at least one of: a map drawing, a spatial query, and a road network matching. The arguments (p. 10) state the invention relates to map drawing technology and does not describe an abstract concept. It is noted that no reasoned arguments have been provided regarding the office’s rationale as to how the steps are a mental process or mathematical concept. The office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s position. Regarding the recitation of the computer device, this is the broad recitation of computer components such that the abstract idea is merely “applied” by a computer. “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)(III) and the rejection below for further detail). This does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Regarding the map drawing, the recitation of “map drawing” in the claims is broad and therefore is a further part of the abstract idea, as map drawing could be done by a person manually, and the field of cartography has existed before computers. Additionally, the map drawing is recited in a list of alternatives including a spatial query, and a road network matching, such that map drawing is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and the list of alternatives is inside a “wherein” clause, and not positively recited as a method step. The arguments (p. 10) further recite the advantage of consistency over prior art, however the office submits that this is a result of the abstract idea itself, rather than a technical solution rooted in any particular technology. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “at more than two layer” should instead read “at more than two layers”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “steps for calculating the skeleton line similarity of the multi-scale road network comprise” in Claim 1,
(b) “a minimum number of steps required for a node in the road network to reach all other nodes” and the further recitations of the “steps” in this limitation, in Claim 1,
(c) “steps for calculating the local similarity of the multi-scale road network comprise” in Claim 1.
Examiner’s note: claim limitations (a) and (c) recite specific steps (acts) to perform the steps, therefore the limitations are not interpreted as invoking 112(f), and limitation (b) uses the term “step” as a noun and not an act/function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the functional network indexes refer to any network performance information describing connectivity, capacity, or accessibility.” The disclosure as originally filed does not appear to contain any definition of the functional network indexes or recite network performance information describing connectivity, capacity, or accessibility. Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Additionally, regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “wherein, the connection value refers to a total number of other roads intersecting a road, the control value represents a degree of control or influence of a road on its adjacent roads, the local integration degree is used to reflect a close degree of association between a road and other roads, and expresses a degree of accessibility from one road to other roads in the road network, and the overall depth value represents a minimum number of steps required for a node in the road network to reach all other nodes, wherein the number of steps refers to a value of a topological space, that is, a distance between two adjacent nodes is one step.” The disclosure as originally filed does not appear to contain these definitions of the connection value, control value, local integration degree or depth value. Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Additionally, regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “the contour skeleton is a set of skeleton roads on a periphery of a particular area, and the functional skeleton is a complete set of skeleton roads including those on the periphery and inside the particular area.” The disclosure as originally filed does not appear to recite these definitions or details of the contour skeleton and functional skeleton. Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Additionally, regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the child nodes comprise son nodes and offspring nodes, the son nodes are nodes that branch at one layer relative to the skeleton lines, and the offspring nodes are nodes that branch at more than two layer relative to the skeleton lines.” The disclosure as originally filed does not appear to recite these definitions or details of the son and offspring nodes. Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1 is 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “wherein the (S2) specifically comprises…” steps (1) through (7) renders the claim indefinite. The previously recited step S2 is “performing scale transformation on an obtained road network map,” however the steps (1) through (7) do not recite any details of scale transformation, and instead describe evaluation of skeleton lines and roads. It is not clear whether the limitation is intended to recite another step, or whether steps (1) through (7) are intended to recite details of scale transformation, or something else. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as referring to S3, as best understood in view of the claim and specification.
Additionally, regarding Claim 1, the limitation “wherein the child nodes comprise son nodes and offspring nodes, the son nodes are nodes that branch at one layer relative to the skeleton lines, and the offspring nodes are nodes that branch at more than two layer relative to the skeleton lines” renders the claim indefinite. Particularly, it is not clear how a node can “branch at more than two layer relative to the skeleton lines” as each individual node only exists at a single layer. Therefore it is not clear what offspring nodes are, and whether determining an offspring node requires evaluating a node’s children or parent nodes or something else. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the offspring nodes are understood to be any nodes that are connected to plural other layers of nodes.
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 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 - Statutory Category) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim limitations below, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of one or both of a mental process (capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper - see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), and a mathematical concept (i.e. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations - see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Particularly, a person can mentally or manually perform a similarity calculation method considering multiple features for a multiscale road network (the person judging similarity of, for example, two received road networks as drawn roads on a map or a table of coordinates or set of nodes) comprising:
calculating a skeleton line similarity of the multi-scale road network between any two road networks (the person performing the steps below for the skeleton similarity); and
calculating a local similarity of the multi-scale road network between the any two road
networks (the person performing the steps below for the local similarity), wherein:
steps for calculating the skeleton line similarity of the multi-scale road network comprise:
(S1): connecting road sections with same name first (the person comparing road names to establish connections, mentally or in drawn form), and then performing stroke construction on the road network to generate n road strokes (the person combining road segments to consider broader road strokes on the map (e.g. circling or mentally grouping segments));
(S2): performing scale transformation on an obtained road network map (for example, the person copying the network map with a different scale or multiplying coordinates by a constant);
(S3): setting thresholds according to lengths of roads and functional network indexes to extract skeleton lines of the road network, wherein the functional network indexes refer to any network performance information describing connectivity, capacity, or accessibility (the person knowing lengths of roads and, e.g. connectivity to other roads, and then deciding upon a threshold with the intended use to extract skeleton lines. Examiner’s note: the claim does not positively recite an extracting step):
wherein the (S2) specifically comprises:
(1) sorting the n road strokes of the multi-scale road network according to lengths of the n road strokes, wherein each of the n road strokes comprises connected road segments (the person mentally or manually comparing the length values to rank or order or group the strokes);
{2) performing functional network analysis on the road network by using space syntax (the person evaluating nodes and edge of the road network based on the spatial configuration, for example by evaluating the positions on a map), and calculating an importance value of each of the n road stroke according to a connection value, a control value, a local integration degree and an overall depth value (the person manually performing any calculating using such values as input. Alternatively, a pure calculating step is be the abstract idea of a mathematical concept); wherein, the connection value refers to a total number of other roads intersecting a road, the control value represents a degree of control or influence of a road on its adjacent roads, the local integration degree is used to reflect a close degree of association between a road and other roads, and expresses a degree of accessibility from one road to other roads in the road network, and the overall depth value represents a minimum number of steps required for a node in the road network to reach all other nodes, wherein the number of steps refers to a value of a topological space, that is, a distance between two adjacent nodes is one step (the values being numbers a person can consider mentally if provided, or alternatively values a person can decide, calculate, or estimate the values by counting, and judgment);
(3) calculating an adjustment coefficient as a threshold for skeleton line extraction by using formula
PNG
media_image1.png
53
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to adjust a number of skeleton roads selected, wherein Mean_length(stroke) represents a length mean value of the n road strokes, and Std_length(stroke) represents a length standard deviation of the n road strokes, wherein the skeleton lines refer to the skeleton roads (the person manually performing the calculations, alternatively, the calculating being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept. It is noted that the language “to adjust” only recites intended use and thus receives little patentable weight);
( 4) calculating a mileage proportion occupied by the skeleton roads by using formula a=μ *L, wherein L represents the total length value of roads, μ represents the proportion occupied by actual skeleton roads, and
PNG
media_image2.png
85
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(the person performing multiplication manually, or alternatively, the calculating being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept),
(5) calculating theoretical proportions and theoretical mileage values of a contour skeleton and a functional skeleton in the total mileage respectively, wherein the proportion of the contour skeleton calculated according to the length is 0.6a, the proportion of the functional skeleton calculated according to the importance value is 0.4a, the contour skeleton is a set of skeleton roads on a periphery of a particular area, and the functional skeleton is a complete set of skeleton roads including those on the periphery and inside the particular area (the person performing the multiplication calculations, alternatively calculating being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept);
(6) calculating a number of the skeleton lines according to the theoretical proportions and the theoretical mileage values; (the person counting or calculating the number of lines, alternatively calculating being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept);
{7) connecting nodes sequentially according to connection relations between the road skeleton lines to form a skeleton line structure tree (the person forming mental associations or drawing the skeleton line structure tree with pen and paper);
(S4}: calculating a similarity S(n1,n2) of child nodes of the structure tree by using formula (I) and formula (II);
PNG
media_image3.png
42
685
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein, S(n1,n2) represents the similarity of nodes n1 and n2, and S_offspring, S_sunnum and S_height represent a similarity of a number of offspring, a similarity of a number of sons, and a similarity of heights of offspring respectively; wherein the child nodes comprise son nodes and offspring nodes, the son nodes are nodes that branch at one layer relative to the skeleton lines, and the offspring nodes are nodes that branch at more than two layer relative to the skeleton lines;
PNG
media_image4.png
98
890
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(the person performing the addition mentally or manually, or alternatively the calculation being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept);
wherein R1, R2 represent coefficients of proportions of the absolute similarity and the relative similarity, which are both set to 0.5, min(n1_sun, n2_sun) represents one with smaller number of sons in node n1 and node n2, max(n1 sun, n2 sun) represents one with larger number of sons in node n1 and node n2, min(max(Brother)) represents one with smaller number of the largest number max(Brother1) of sons in brother node of node n1 and the largest number max(Brother2) of sons in brother node of node n2, and the similarity of the number of offspring S offspring and the similarity of heights of offspring S height are calculated according to formulas (III) and (IV) respectively (further detail of the abstract idea of the calculation):
PNG
media_image5.png
62
968
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(the person performing the addition mentally or manually, or alternatively the calculation being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept);
wherein R1, R2 represent coefficients of proportions of the absolute similarity and the relative similarity, which are both set to 0.5, min(n1 off spring. n7 off spring) represents one with smaller number of offspring in node n1 and node n2, max(n1 offspring. n7 offspring) represents one with larger number of offspring in node n1 and node n2, min(max(Brother)) represents one with smaller number of largest number max(Brother1) of offspring in brother node of node n1 and largest number max(Brother2) of offspring in offspring nodes of node n2 (further detail of the abstract idea of the calculation):
PNG
media_image6.png
62
938
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(the person performing the addition mentally or manually, or alternatively the calculation being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept);
wherein R1, R7 represent coefficients of proportions of the absolute similarity and the relative similarity, which are both set to 0.5, min(n1 off spring. n7 off spring) represents one with smaller height of offspring in node n1 and node n2, max(n1 of (spring. n7 off spring) represents one with larger height of offspring in node n1 and node n2, min(max(Brother)) represents one with smaller height of largest height max(Brother1) of offspring in brother node of node n1 and largest height max(Brother2) of offspring in offspring nodes of node n2 (further detail of the abstract idea of the calculation);
(S5): determining matched child nodes according to the similarity of the child nodes of the structure tree (the person identifying the matches based on the result of the similarity calculations, e.g. comparison to a threshold), and calculating structural similarity of the matched child nodes to obtain the structural similarity Sim_global of the skeleton lines of the road network by using formulas (V) and (VI):
PNG
media_image7.png
68
592
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
79
882
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein m represents a total number of the matched child nodes, 1/r represents a hierarchical penalty coefficient, layer(ni) represents a number of layers of the node, R1 , R2 and R3 represent weights of the number of sons of the node, the height of the node, and the number of offspring of the node respectively, which are all set herein as 1/ 3, n1_sumnum, n2_sumnum represent the numbers of sons of nodes n1, n2 respectively, n1_height- n2_height represent the heights of nodes n1 n2 respectively, n1_offspring and n2_offspring represent the numbers of offspring of nodes n1, n2 respectively, and the layer refers to a hierarchical level of a node in the structure tree (the person mentally or manually performing such calculations, or alternatively the calculation being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept);
steps for calculating the local similarity of the multi-scale road network comprise:
(S6): matching all scaled road meshes and original road meshes respectively, wherein the meshes refer to smallest closed loops naturally formed by several road sections in the road network (the person visually matching meshes or matching using location or any other basis for making an association);
(S7): calculating topological quantization values
PNG
media_image9.png
37
91
media_image9.png
Greyscale
of road meshes at the same position at two scales and calculating topological differences
PNG
media_image10.png
43
99
media_image10.png
Greyscale
of each road mesh, wherein m represents a number of neighboring road meshes having a topological relationship with the road mesh T, ni represents a number of Lebesgue covering dimension of the topology, V1 and V2 represent the topological quantization values of the road mesh before and after scale transformation respectively, and max(V1, V2 ) represents the larger one of the two topological quantization values(the person manually or mentally performing the calculations, or alternatively the calculation being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept);
(S8) acquiring topological similarity
PNG
media_image11.png
37
139
media_image11.png
Greyscale
of the multi-scale road network according to the topological differences of each road mesh before and after scale transformation, wherein n represents the number of road meshes (the person manually or mentally performing the calculations, or alternatively the calculation being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept);
(S9): calculating a density
PNG
media_image12.png
39
59
media_image12.png
Greyscale
and a density difference
PNG
media_image13.png
40
107
media_image13.png
Greyscale
of each road mesh at the same position before and after matching, and generating a one-dimensional array S={S1,S2, …, Sn}, wherein P represents the total length of road sections on the mesh boundary, L represents the total length of road sections in the mesh, A represents the mesh area, max(G1, G2) represents the larger one of the two geometric eigenvalues, and n represents the total number of road meshes in a road network target (the person manually or mentally performing the calculations, or alternatively the calculation being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept);
(S10): calculating geometric similarity
PNG
media_image14.png
37
115
media_image14.png
Greyscale
between all scaled roads and original roads (the person manually or mentally performing the calculations, or alternatively the calculation being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept);
(S11): calculating importance hierarchies
PNG
media_image15.png
60
324
media_image15.png
Greyscale
of all the road meshes, wherein, Di represents the hierarchy size of each road mesh, d1 represent the hierarchy of each road constituting the periphery of the road mesh, and li, represents the length of each road constituting the periphery of the road mesh (the person manually or mentally performing the calculations, or alternatively the calculation being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept); and
(S12): calculating a local similarity calculation result Sim_local: considering semantic
information of the road network
PNG
media_image16.png
103
376
media_image16.png
Greyscale
wherein w1 and w2 represent weights of the topological similarity and the geometric similarity of the road mesh respectively, which are set to 0.6 and 0.4 respectively herein(the person manually or mentally performing the calculations, or alternatively the calculation being the abstract idea of a mathematical concept),
wherein on the basis of the skeleton line similarity and the local similarity, an operation is performed on at least one of: a map drawing (the person drawing any map after determining the skeleton line similarity), a spatial query (for example the person finding a road or point on the map), and a road network matching (for example the person manually or mentally matching a road of the drawn map/network to a real road, or matching a recorded vehicle position to a map road).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element in the claim is the method being performed “by a computer device.” This additional element is the recitation of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites the abstract idea applied to a computer at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional element in the claim is the method being performed “by a computer device.”
For the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as there is only a single additional element and the ordered combination of limitations merely describes a multi-step abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is rejected under 112 and 101, but would be allowable if amended to overcome these rejections.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding Independent Claim 1, US20240077875A1 teaches matching of nodes in a local and full topology map to determine matching degree of a map (see e.g. Figure 3)
CN109522385A teaches determination of matching of multi-scale road networks at a global and local level using topography (see e.g. [0009])
EP1750092A1 teaches a technique for road shape matching based on nodes (see e.g. [0017, 0046]).
US20050002571A1 teaches calculation of correspondence between global topological graphs (see e.g. [0020]).
CN113704377A teaches calculation of road similarity using topological and node distance (see [0008-0019]).
NPL Publication “Combined Matching Approach of Road Networks Under Different Scales Considering Constraints of Cartographic Generalization” teaches stroke matching in multi-scale road networks (see e.g. p. 946).
NPL Publication “Multilayer Scene Similarity Assessment” teaches comparison of road scenes based on topology (see p. 623).
NPL Publication “An elimination method for isolated meshes in a road network considering stroke edge feature” teaches elimination of meshes based on importance and density metrics (see e.g. Abstract, and p. 5) and calculation of similarity between road networks based on total length of roads (see e.g. p. 11).
However, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a similarity calculation method as described by the entirety of Claim 1 (as best understood and interpreted in view of the issues under 112(b)).
The combination of limitations defining the particular similarity calculations for skeleton lines and local similarity, as described by the complete steps of the method and equations is not found or made obvious by the prior art. The combination with the other claim limitations are neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior arts on record. A search of foreign prior art and Non-Patent Literature was conducted; however, no relevant prior art was found.
As such the claimed subject matter of Claim 1 would be allowable.
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 Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights