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 .
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 11-20 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the server” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim only previously introduces a “system” and not a “server”.
Claims 12-20 are likewise rejected based at least on their dependence from rejected claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 11 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 11 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 11 recites:
A system for adaptively dividing a map into a plurality of submaps, the map comprising a plurality of roads, each of the plurality of roads being connected to at least one other road of the plurality of roads, the system comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with at least one processor, cause the server at least to:
for each pair of submaps from the plurality of submaps within the map, calculate an association score based on a first accuracy metric in predicting a first latent attribute of at least one first road of a first submap of the each pair of submaps using parameters for predicting a second latent attribute of at least one second road of a second submap of the each pair of submaps; and
form one of a plurality of new submaps within the map from each pair of a pair set of submaps from the plurality of submaps based on a result of determining a sum of the association scores of the pair set of submaps is higher than that of another pair set of submaps from the plurality of submaps.
The highlighted portion of claim 11 above describes a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of dividing a map region into submaps, selecting pairs of submaps and computing an association score for each pair, and forming new submaps from pairs of submaps with a high association score. This is equivalent to a person dividing a map into regions, then subsequently combining pairs of regions based on how similar the two regions are, i.e. by how likely they would be to correctly infer a first map’s attributes by using parameters of the second map. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person observing map pairs could detect similarity between some pairs and group the two subregions of a map. The mere nominal recitation that the process is being executed by a processor does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 11 recites:
A system for adaptively dividing a map into a plurality of submaps, the map comprising a plurality of roads, each of the plurality of roads being connected to at least one other road of the plurality of roads, the system comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with at least one processor, cause the server at least to:
for each pair of submaps from the plurality of submaps within the map, calculate an association score based on a first accuracy metric in predicting a first latent attribute of at least one first road of a first submap of the each pair of submaps using parameters for predicting a second latent attribute of at least one second road of a second submap of the each pair of submaps; and
form one of a plurality of new submaps within the map from each pair of a pair set of submaps from the plurality of submaps based on a result of determining a sum of the association scores of the pair set of submaps is higher than that of another pair set of submaps from the plurality of submaps.
Claim 11 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the calculation and submap formation steps are performed by a processor and memory, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 11 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Selecting data is a fundamental, i.e. WURC, activity performed by servers, server in claim 11. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the selecting step is performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 11 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 has similar limitations to claim 11 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are likewise ineligible. They each add to the mental process, as they further detail mental process steps and stipulations without integrating the mental process into practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are also rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20200334495 by Al-Rfou et al. teaching computing of similarity scores of pairs of subgraphs (see e.g. [0034], [0042], [0047], [0068]-[0069], [0085]).
US20200151197 by Guo et al. teaching joining of different map datasets (see e.g. paragraphs [0086]-[0087], [0088])
US11308066 by Li et al. teaching combination of partitions based on size.
US20200393252 by Bush et al. teaching combining heterogeneous types of maps.
US20140119674 by Das et al. teaching fusing maps from different sources.
US20220138260 by Koval et al. teaching change functions for a map partition that has similar features to the first.
US20120283948 by Demiryurek et al. teaching partitioning a road network into subgraphs.
US20100299370 by Otto teaching encoding map partitions from separate databases.
US20210286829 by Nonez et al. teaching comparing parameter values between different maps.
US20230281430 by Sinop et al. teaching determining graph affinity features.
US20210343142 by Lewis et al. teaching partitioning a road network and calculating an average speed of vehicles in a partition.
US12423074 by Fan et al. teaching merging neural network partitions based on a cost ranking.
US20220180214 by Cervantes et al. teaching partitioning a graph and predicting semantic categories.
US11941892 by Naseer et al. teaching forming a larger point cloud by merging subsets of point clouds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights