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 patent application filed on May 22, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 Application No. KR10-2024-0104129, filed on August 5, 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.
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the amendments filed May 22, 2026, the drawing objection of the non-final rejection filed February 24, 2026 is withdrawn. Further, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection is also overcome. The prior art rejections are also overcome. However, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained for the reasons below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 13-19, filed May 22, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 102, 35 USC 103, and 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pgs. 11-13 filed May 22, 2026, the applicant argues that the technological solution yields measurable improvements in computational efficiency, and therefore integrates the abstract idea into practical application. However, the examiner disagrees. As stated in the preamble of the claims, the improvement by the invention occurs in a “wide area”, however, the body of the claims fail to capture this improvement occurring in a wide area. Further, MPEP 2106.05(a), states "...It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement." so even if the abstract idea represents an improvement that alone doesn't represent/capture the improvement for 35 USC 101 purposes, the applicant must still integrate it with the additional elements which in this case are the …receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle… which is just functionally claimed with no details as to how this is done or would represent data gathering. For these reasons, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a global path generation method (i.e. a method claim). Claim 13 is directed to a global path generator (i.e. an apparatus). Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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.
In this case independent claims 1 & 13 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain 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. Claim 1 recites:
A global path generation method for a wide-area off-road environment in which an unmanned vehicle performs autonomous driving, the global path generation method comprising:
generating an occupancy grid map for a driving area through a sensor;
converting the occupancy grid map into a distance map;
generating a plurality of nodes by sampling unit grids through uniform distribution among unit grids in the driving area of the distance map and generating a node for each of the sampled unit grids;
generating a plurality of links connecting the plurality of nodes;
receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle; and
generating a global path by connecting optimal links for arriving at the destination position among the plurality of links.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold 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, “generating an occupancy grid map for a driving area through a sensor”, “generating a plurality of nodes “, “generating a plurality of links connecting the plurality of nodes”, and “generating a global path by connecting optimal links for arriving at the destination position among the plurality of links” in the context of this claim encompasses creating a map and a path which can be done with pen and paper. “converting the occupancy grid map into a distance map” in the context of the claim encompasses using collected measurements to change a map from one unit to another. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 13, which is of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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 idea 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 global path generation method for a wide-area off-road environment in which an unmanned vehicle performs autonomous driving, the global path generation method comprising:
generating an occupancy grid map for a driving area through a sensor;
converting the occupancy grid map into a distance map;
generating a plurality of nodes by sampling unit grids through uniform distribution among unit grids in the driving area of the distance map and generating a node for each of the sampled unit grids;
generating a plurality of links connecting the plurality of nodes;
receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle; and
generating a global path by connecting optimal links for arriving at the destination position among the plurality of links.
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 “…by sampling unit grids through uniform distribution among unit grids in the driving area of the distance map and generating a node for each of the sampled unit grids” and “receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic processors to perform the processes. In particular the “by sampling unit grids through uniform distribution among unit grids in the driving area of the distance map and generating a node for each of the sampled unit grids” and “receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle” step amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated by gathering data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the “receiving” step amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 – Step2B
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 “receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle” 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 of “by sampling unit grids through uniform distribution among unit grids in the driving area of the distance map and generating a node for each of the sampled unit grids” and “receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle” and “receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “by sampling unit grids through uniform distribution among unit grids in the driving area of the distance map and generating a node for each of the sampled unit grids” and “receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicate that receiving data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence claim 1 is not patent eligible. Claim 13 is also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-12 & 14-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-12 & 14-20, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
It is recommended that the applicant request an interview with the examiner in order to attempt to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101, however it would be allowable when the rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights