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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Notice to Applicant(s)
This application has been examined. Claims 1-14 are pending.
The prior art submitted on September 09, 2024 has been considered.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119, which have been placed of record in the file.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. NOTE: the following detailed rejection is made with respect to independent claim 1, directed toward an apparatus, i.e. machine. However, the analysis is applicable to independent claim 13, which present analogous limitations and are directed toward a method (i.e. process).
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, 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: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 and 13 are respectively directed toward a machine, and a process. Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bold) and additional elements (emphasized in underline) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
(claim 1) (currently amended) An estimation apparatus comprising:
. at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
. at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations
comprising:
. a first acquisition unit that acquires acquiring point cloud data at a plurality of timings
obtained by a sensor mounted on a moving body;
. a second acquisition unit that acquires acquiring map information;
. a division unit that divides dividing each acquired point cloud data item acquired by the first acquisition unit into a plurality of predetermined regions;
. a ratio value calculation unit that calculates calculating, for a first region and a second region different from the first region, a ratio value indicating an association ratio between each data point and the map information in each region; and
. an estimation unit that identifies identifying an estimated change point where a content of the map information is estimated to be different from an actual situation, using a strength of a correlation between a ratio value of the first region shifted in time or position and a ratio value of the second region.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea without significant more. Claims 1 and 13 recites the steps of dividing each acquired point cloud data item acquired by the first acquisition unit into a plurality of predetermined regions”; “calculating, for a first region and a second region different from the first region, a ratio value indicating an association ratio between each data point and the map information in each region”, “identifying an estimated change point where a content of the map information is estimated to be different from an actual situation, using a strength of a correlation between a ratio value of the first region shifted in time or position and a ratio value of the second region” are directed to the “Mathematical concepts” in group of abstract ideas. The group of “mathematical concept” as set forth in MPEP 2106/04(a) is not limited to formulas or equation, especially includes “mathematical relationship” and “mathematical calculation”. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea with respect to step 2A, prong 1.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The claim recites the following additional elements:
. at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
. at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations
. a first acquisition unit that acquires acquiring point cloud data at a plurality of timings
obtained by a sensor mounted on a moving body;
. a second acquisition unit that acquires acquiring map information;
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquiring point cloud data at a plurality of timings
obtained by a sensor mounted on a moving body”, “acquiring map information” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The addition limitation of “at least one memory configured to store instructions”; and “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “at least one memory”, at least one processor” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, as discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of of “acquiring point cloud data at a plurality of timings obtained by a sensor mounted on a moving body”, “acquiring map information”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities and these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 and 14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 13.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The following references are cited as being of general interest: Chong et al. (2023/0311947), Iida et al. (2023/0294711), Wang et al. (2023/0136235) and Hanyuda (2023/0244244).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN QUANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:00am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, can be reached at 570-270-7016.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
January 8, 2026
/TAN Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661