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 10/30/2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0079639, filed on 06/19/2024.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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) are:
“Optical Character Recognition (OCR) module” in claim 1. The specification describes the OCR module as hardware/software and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as computer hardware/software. ([pg.8, lines 18-21]; “In addition, the terms “unit”, “part” or “portion”, “-er”, and “module” in the specification refer to a unit that processes at least one function or operation, which can be implemented by hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software.”).
“OCR filter” in claim 1. The specification describes the OCR module as hardware/software and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as computer hardware/software. ([pg.8, lines 18-21]; “In addition, the terms “unit”, “part” or “portion”, “-er”, and “module” in the specification refer to a unit that processes at least one function or operation, which can be implemented by hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software.”).
“location finding module” in claim 1. The specification describes the OCR module as hardware/software and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as computer hardware/software. ([pg.8, lines 18-21]; “In addition, the terms “unit”, “part” or “portion”, “-er”, and “module” in the specification refer to a unit that processes at least one function or operation, which can be implemented by hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software.”).
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for claimed invention. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case, the independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
A topology map-based user location estimation apparatus, comprising:
an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) module configured to recognize characters from an image of an environment surrounding a user (mental process: a person can view an image and recognize characters in the image);
an OCR filter configured to, based on a similarity determination with location information that is stored in a topology map, filter one or more characters from the recognized characters, the topology map being generated based on a guide map image (mental process: when given data containing a list of recognized characters, a person can view an image and filter out characters that match); and
a location finding module configured to, based on the filtered one or more characters, detect a current location of the user on the topology map (mental process: when given location information related to the recognized characters in an image a person can mentally determine the location of the user).
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 11, which are of similar scope to claim 1. Likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong I.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
A topology map-based user location estimation apparatus, comprising:
an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) module configured to recognize characters from an image of an environment surrounding a user (mental process: a person can view an image and recognize characters in the image);
an OCR filter configured to, based on a similarity determination with location information that is stored in a topology map, filter one or more characters from the recognized characters, the topology map being generated based on a guide map image (mental process: when given data containing a list of recognized characters, a person can view an image and filter out characters that match); and
a location finding module configured to, based on the filtered one or more characters, detect a current location of the user on the topology map (mental process: when given location information related to the recognized characters in an image a person can mentally determine the location of the user).
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) module configured to”, “an OCR filter configured to”, and “a location finding module configured to” the examiner submits that these limitations merely apply the mental process to a computer.
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 limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do 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 2019 PEG, the claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong II, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea and, therefore does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitations “an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) module configured to”, “an OCR filter configured to”, and “a location finding module configured to” as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of “an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) module configured to”, “an OCR filter configured to”, and “a location finding module configured to” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g)
“an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) module configured to”, “an OCR filter configured to”, and “a location finding module configured to”… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.; and
Claim 11 recites a method used to operate the apparatus detailed in claim 1, therefore claim 11 is rejected for the same reason.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1 and 11 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-10 merely narrow the mental processes recited in claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-10 are also rejected under U.S.C. 101 for the same reason.
Claims 12-20 merely narrow the mental processes recited in claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-10 are also rejected under U.S.C. 101 for the same reason.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhong (CN111339976B).
Regarding claim 1, Zhong discloses a topology map-based user location estimation apparatus, comprising:
an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) module configured to recognize characters from an image of an environment surrounding a user ([n0044]; “Optionally, the terminal uses Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology for text recognition.”);
an OCR filter configured to, based on a similarity determination with location information that is stored in a topology map ([n0038]; “When implementing the above indoor positioning method, it is only necessary to pre-collect indoor images containing text and establish the correspondence between different indoor images and indoor locations.”), filter one or more characters from the recognized characters ([n0103]; “When a candidate image contains corresponding candidate text content, the terminal filters out the candidate text content containing the text recognition results based on the text recognition results, and then filters out the candidate image corresponding to the candidate text content.”), the topology map being generated based on a guide map image ([n0128]; “As illustrated in Figure 11, after the terminal determines the target location, it displays an indoor map in the navigation interface 1101 and marks the target location on the indoor map (marked with a star in the figure).”); and
a location finding module configured to, based on the filtered one or more characters, detect a current location of the user on the topology map. ([n0085]; “In one possible implementation, the terminal stores a correspondence between preset locations and location descriptions. The terminal then determines the target location from the preset locations based on the matching degree between the text recognition results and the location descriptions.”
[n0128]; “As illustrated in Figure 11, after the terminal determines the target location, it displays an indoor map in the navigation interface 1101 and marks the target location on the indoor map (marked with a star in the figure).”)
Claim 11 recites a method to operate the apparatus recited in claim 1. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Zhong as evidenced by Zhang (CN113656629A).
Regarding claim 2, Zhong discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Zhong discloses the OCR module is configured to, based on a utilization of an artificial intelligence ([n0065]; “In this embodiment, the terminal stores a pre-set text recognition model, which is a neural network model trained on a training set using machine learning methods.”), (ii) determine a confidence level of an OCR recognition result regarding the image. ([n0048]; “When performing image recognition on a target image, the terminal determines the image matching degree between the pre-captured image and the target image, and then determines the target location corresponding to the target image from the preset capture positions based on the image matching degree.”)
Although Zhong discloses the use of optical character recognizing systems, Zhong does not explicitly state the steps of detecting characters and their respective coordinate of a pixel where one or more characters are located.
However, Zhang within the same field of endeavor does teach detect the characters and a respective coordinate of a pixel where one or more of the characters is located ([n0082]; “It should be noted that the image feature point location information described in this embodiment can be the coordinate information of the pixel feature points of the image within the text box (i.e., 2D position).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhong with Zhang. This modification would have been obvious because both Zhong and Zhang cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (optical character recognition to locate image) and it would have been obvious to utilize obtain pixel coordinate information of the detected characters within an image to determine the characters position in space.
Regarding claim 3, Zhong in combination with Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Additionally Zhong discloses the topology map comprises a vertex that stores the location information and an edge that connects the vertex to another vertex. ([n0095]; “For locations that support indoor navigation, developers pre-capture areas containing text within the location (at preset capture positions around the text-containing areas) to obtain candidate images corresponding to each text-containing area, and then generate an image set corresponding to the location based on each candidate image.”
Note: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that each preset image captured would correlate to a vertex and an edge connecting each vertex would be made in order to determine their position within the indoor map.)
Regarding claim 4, Zhong in combination with Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Additionally Zhong discloses the location finding module is configured to extract, from vertices of the topology map, a vertex that is estimated as the current location of the user. ([n0085]; “In one possible implementation, the terminal stores a correspondence between preset locations and location descriptions. The terminal then determines the target location from the preset locations based on the matching degree between the text recognition results and the location descriptions.”
Note: As discussed in the mapping of claim 3, each preset image would represent a vertex to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, Zhong teaches determining which vertex the user is located based on matching the recognized text with the preset images.)
Claim 12 recites a method to operate the apparatus recited in claim 2. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 13 recites a method to operate the apparatus recited in claim 3. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 14 recites a method to operate the apparatus recited in claim 4. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668