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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 09 April 2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the selected map elements” appears to be a typographical error and should be “the selected map element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 should be amended to recite “a selection unit ...; [[and]] a correction unit ...; and an estimation device ...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 7 and 8 recite the limitation “an estimation device configured to estimate a position and orientation of the moving object based on the corrected position and orientation information” (claims 1 and 8) and “estimating, by at least one processor, a position and orientation of the moving object based on the corrected position and orientation information” (claim 7). Applicant’s specification (e.g. Figures 4, 5, 9 and 11 with their corresponding paragraphs) does not appear to provide support for a separate estimation device and/or a separate step of estimating a position and orientation of the moving object based on the corrected position and orientation information which is supposedly different than the “correcting ...” limitation performed by the “correction unit” already recited in the claims.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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.
Claims 1 and 7 are indefinite because of the recited limitations “[select]/[selecting] map elements ...”. Is it unclear, to the Examiner, whether these map elements being selected are in any way related to the previously recited plurality of map elements or not, e.g. among the plurality of map elements.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 and 8 are directed to an apparatus and claim 7 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1, 7 and 8 are 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 7 and 8 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
“An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor configured to function as: an acquisition unit configured to acquire three-dimensional map information including a plurality of map elements corresponding to all movement paths of a moving object, each of the plurality of map elements including (i) sensor information obtained by a sensor mounted on the moving object measuring an environment, and (ii) position and orientation information about the sensor, the position and orientation information being estimated based on the sensor information; a detection unit configured to detect that the moving object has reached a location near a certain point a plurality of times based on the sensor information included in each of two map elements among the plurality of map elements, wherein each of the two map elements used to detect that the moving object has reached the location near the certain point the plurality of times belongs to a respective movement path of two movement paths among all the movement paths, and wherein the moving object has reached the location near the certain point one of the plurality of times in each of the two movement paths; a selection unit configured to select map elements, other than the two map elements, for a map elements group, the selected map elements including sensor information obtained by measuring an environment partially common to an environment measured to obtain the sensor information included in each of the two map elements used by the detection unit to detect that the moving object has reached the location near the certain point the plurality of times; a first position and orientation acquisition unit configured to acquire, for each of the two map elements, a relative position and orientation between the map element on one of the two movement paths and each of the selected map elements on the other of the two movement paths based on the sensor information included in the selected map elements; a second position and orientation acquisition unit configured to acquire relative positions and orientations between adjacent map elements of the plurality of map elements on all the movement paths; a correction unit configured to correct the position and orientation information about the sensor included in each of the selected map elements corresponding to the two movement paths where the moving object has reached the location near the certain point the plurality of times based on the relative positions and orientations acquired by the first position and orientation acquisition unit and the relative positions and orientations acquired by the second position and orientation acquisition unit; and an estimation device configured to estimate a position and orientation of the moving object based on the corrected position and orientation information”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, detect ..., select ..., acquire ... acquire ..., correct ... and estimate ... in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. 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).
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”):
“An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor configured to function as: an acquisition unit configured to acquire three-dimensional map information including a plurality of map elements corresponding to all movement paths of a moving object, each of the plurality of map elements including (i) sensor information obtained by a sensor mounted on the moving object measuring an environment, and (ii) position and orientation information about the sensor, the position and orientation information being estimated based on the sensor information; a detection unit configured to detect that the moving object has reached a location near a certain point a plurality of times based on the sensor information included in each of two map elements among the plurality of map elements, wherein each of the two map elements used to detect that the moving object has reached the location near the certain point the plurality of times belongs to a respective movement path of two movement paths among all the movement paths, and wherein the moving object has reached the location near the certain point one of the plurality of times in each of the two movement paths; a selection unit configured to select map elements, other than the two map elements, for a map elements group, the selected map elements including sensor information obtained by measuring an environment partially common to an environment measured to obtain the sensor information included in each of the two map elements used by the detection unit to detect that the moving object has reached the location near the certain point the plurality of times; a first position and orientation acquisition unit configured to acquire, for each of the two map elements, a relative position and orientation between the map element on one of the two movement paths and each of the selected map elements on the other of the two movement paths based on the sensor information included in the selected map elements; a second position and orientation acquisition unit configured to acquire relative positions and orientations between adjacent map elements of the plurality of map elements on all the movement paths; a correction unit configured to correct the position and orientation information about the sensor included in each of the selected map elements corresponding to the two movement paths where the moving object has reached the location near the certain point the plurality of times based on the relative positions and orientations acquired by the first position and orientation acquisition unit and the relative positions and orientations acquired by the second position and orientation acquisition unit; and an estimation device configured to estimate a position and orientation of the moving object based on the corrected position and orientation information”
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 limitations of acquiring ... [3D] map information including a plurality of map elements ... the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring ... step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of acquiring data for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 7 and 8 further recite the “An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor configured to function as: an acquisition unit configured to ...; a detection unit configured to ...; a selection unit configured to ...; a first position and orientation acquisition unit configured to ...; a second position and orientation acquisition unit configured to ...; a correction unit configured to ...; and an estimation device configured to ...” which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
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 (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 2019 PEG, 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 a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of acquiring ... is well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is 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 collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 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 additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12169135. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application as shown in the following claim correspondence table:
Present Application
U.S. Patent No. 12169135
1 , 7, 8
1 , 11 , 12
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomono (JP2018120460A – translation attached).
Regarding claim 8, Tomono discloses an information processing apparatus (see at least [0036]) comprising: at least one processor configured to function as (see at least [0036]): an acquisition unit configured to acquire sequentially a plurality of map elements as a moving object moves (see at least Figures 3-5, [0011], [0045] and [0137]), each of the plurality of map elements including (i) sensor information obtained by a sensor mounted on the moving object measuring an environment (see at least [0011], [0038], [0048] and [0136]-[0139]), and (ii) position and orientation information about the sensor, the position and orientation information being estimated based on the sensor information (see at least [0011], [0018], [0049] and [0136]-[0139]); a detection unit configured to detect that the moving object has reached a location near a first point a plurality of times based on the plurality of map elements acquired by the acquisition unit (see at least [0011], [0071], [0073] and [0074]); a selection unit configured to select a second map element, which is the map element present at a location near a first map element, which is the map element used when the detection unit detects that the moving object has reached the location near the first point the plurality of times, among the plurality of map elements acquired by the acquisition unit (see at least Figures 5&6, [0078], [0080], [0086] and [0087]); and a correction unit configured to correct the position and orientation information about the sensor included in at least part of the plurality of map elements corresponding to a movement path of the moving object when the detection unit detects that the moving object has reached the location near the first point the plurality of times, based on the first map element and the second map element (see at least [0095], [0117], [0124]-[0126], [0128] and [0132]); an estimation device configured to estimate a position and orientation of the moving object based on the corrected position and orientation information (see at least [0095], [0117], [0124]-[0126], [0128] and [0132]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights