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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 09/04/2024. Claims 1-8 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "device configured to", in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process as it recites (a method for aligning).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A method for aligning a first map section of a digital road map with a second map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the first map section, the method comprising the following steps:
determining that a first relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section cannot be unambiguously ascertained;
ascertaining a second relative rotation between a third map section of the digital road map and a fourth map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the third map section, wherein the third map section and the fourth map section are adjacent to the first map section and to the second map section; and
aligning the first map section with the second map section, wherein the alignment includes ascertaining a relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section based on the ascertained second relative rotation.
The recited limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A method for aligning a first map section of a digital road map with a second map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the first map section, the method comprising the following steps:
determining that a first relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section cannot be unambiguously ascertained;
ascertaining a second relative rotation between a third map section of the digital road map and a fourth map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the third map section, wherein the third map section and the fourth map section are adjacent to the first map section and to the second map section; and
aligning the first map section with the second map section, wherein the alignment includes ascertaining a relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section based on the ascertained second relative rotation.
There are no additional elements.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, there are no additional elements. For these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claims 2-6
These method claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 1, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the movement and alignment of different map sections, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional.
As per claim 7
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites (a device configured to align).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A device configured to align a first map section of a digital road map with a second map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the first map section, the device configured to:
determine that a first relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section cannot be unambiguously ascertained;
ascertain a second relative rotation between a third map section of the digital road map and a fourth map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the third map section, wherein the third map section and the fourth map section are adjacent to the first map section and to the second map section; and
align the first map section with the second map section, wherein the alignment includes ascertaining a relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section based on the ascertained second relative rotation.
The recited limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The mere nominal recitation of the device, and its unrecited processor, does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A device configured to align a first map section of a digital road map with a second map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the first map section, the device configured to:
determine that a first relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section cannot be unambiguously ascertained;
ascertain a second relative rotation between a third map section of the digital road map and a fourth map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the third map section, wherein the third map section and the fourth map section are adjacent to the first map section and to the second map section; and
align the first map section with the second map section, wherein the alignment includes ascertaining a relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section based on the ascertained second relative rotation.
The recited device is recited at a high level of generality and merely applies the exception using generic computer components to automate the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using
generic computer components. The use of generic computer components to execute a program is well-understood and conventional. For these reasons, claim 7 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claim 8
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites (a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for aligning a first map section of a digital road map with a second map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the first map section, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
determining that a first relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section cannot be unambiguously ascertained;
ascertaining a second relative rotation between a third map section of the digital road map and a fourth map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the third map section, wherein the third map section and the fourth map section are adjacent to the first map section and to the second map section; and
aligning the first map section with the second map section, wherein the alignment includes ascertaining a relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section based on the ascertained second relative rotation.
The recited limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The mere nominal recitation of the computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for aligning a first map section of a digital road map with a second map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the first map section, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
determining that a first relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section cannot be unambiguously ascertained;
ascertaining a second relative rotation between a third map section of the digital road map and a fourth map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the third map section, wherein the third map section and the fourth map section are adjacent to the first map section and to the second map section; and
aligning the first map section with the second map section, wherein the alignment includes ascertaining a relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section based on the ascertained second relative rotation.
The recited computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely applies the exception using generic computer components to automate the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using
generic computer components. The use of generic computer components to execute a program is well-understood and conventional. For these reasons, claim 8 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIS ASIM SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-6426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-F EST.
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, Fadey S. Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/F.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights