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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 6/19/25, wherein:
Claims 1-18 are currently pending;
Claim 10 has been amended;
Claims 11-18 have been added.
Claims 1-18 overcome the prior art of record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text in the flow chart of figures 1-2 are blurry and hard to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1 recite the steps of “S10: acquiring boundary information of a map, wherein the boundary information comprises state information of boundary lines and a total boundary length, and the total boundary length is configured as a sum of lengths of all the boundary lines: S20: classifying all boundary lines that meet a preset condition into one orthogonal line group: S30: determining a relationship between a reference ratio and a determination threshold, if a first relationship is met, proceeding to S40, and if a second relationship is met, proceeding to S50, wherein the reference ratio is a ratio of a maximum boundary line length to the total boundary length, with the boundary line length being defined as a sum of lengths of all boundary lines within one orthogonal line group: S40: establishing a plane Cartesian coordinate system based on a first reference, then proceeding to S60; S50: establishing a plane Cartesian coordinate system based on a second reference, then proceeding to S60; and S60: aligning the map according to the plane Cartesian coordinate system” are directed to the “Mathematical concepts” in group of abstract ideas. See Applicant’s specification publication at least in pars. 0065-0090 which disclose these steps are performed using the mathematical relationships and mathematical calculation. The grouping of “mathematical concept” as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a) is not limited to formulas or equation, and specifically includes “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculation”. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea with respect to step 2A, prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application with respect to step 2A, prong 2. In particular, the claims do not recite particular machine (e.g. autonomous operation device, a robot as describe in specification) to perform the abstract idea. The claim recites additional elements of “acquiring boundary information of a map, and outputting the boundary information of the aligned map to a user terminal”. However, these additional elements are considered as data gathering and does not amount significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discuss above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of acquiring boundary information of a map, and outputting the boundary information of the aligned map to a user terminal are considered as data gathering and well understood routine conventional as it has been held by the court. Particularly, receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the independent 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Dependent claims 12-18 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational and are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Resnik (US 2023/0078911): determining an incident location of an incident. The incident disperses over a geographic area. The approach also involves generating a polygon representing the geographic area. The incident location is represented as one vertex of the polygon;
Afrouzi et al (US 11,274,929): Method for constructing a map while perform work;
Afrouzi et al (US 2019/0176321): obtaining a map of a working environment of a robot; presenting a user interface having inputs by which, responsive to user inputs, modes of operation of the robot are assigned to areas of the working environment depicted in the user interface;
Witmer et al (US 2006/0041375): Automated georeferencing of digitized map images.
Fong et al (US 2021/0282613): receiving mapping data collected by an autonomous cleaning robot as the autonomous cleaning robot moves about an environment. A portion of the mapping data is indicative of a location of an object in the environment.
Lee (US 12,369,509): Display for controlling robotic tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656