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 .
Response to Amendment
The 06/24/2026 amendments to claims are entered. Claims 1, 4-6, 9, and 11 are amended. claims 13-15 are newly added, and claims 2-3, 7-8, 10, and 12 are canceled. Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11, and 13-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 06/24/2026 Remarks have been fully considered alongside the Amendments.
Regarding the § 101 rejections:
On p. 12 of the Remarks, Applicant traverses the § 101 rejections but believes the amendments overcome the rejections.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the § 101 rejections have been overcome. The steps of identifying a magnitude of an error of the measurement value based on an identified material, updating a map value based on that magnitude, and setting a value indicating the presence of an object based on the magnitude (with regards to claims 1, 9, and 11) are further rejected as being directed to an abstract idea as discussed below. Likewise, the steps of generating a travel path and displaying error distribution information on a display (with regards to claims 13-15) do not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see also below.
Therefore, the § 101 rejections stand.
Regarding the Prior art Rejections:
The prior art rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments made. The claims are allowable over the prior art once all other outstanding rejections have been overcome, see below.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for acquiring a material distribution including information on a building material in addition to a three-dimensional model of a building structure and acquiring a material distribution using sensor data, does not reasonably provide enablement for acquiring a material distribution using both means. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Applicant’s specification offers two embodiments of their invention. In the first embodiment, the material distribution is acquired that includes information on a building material and a three-dimensional model of a building structure (or “BIM” information as disclosed in the specification). In the seventh embodiment, Applicant discloses that the material distribution may be alternatively acquired via image processing performed on images captured by a camera on the movable apparatus.
However, Applicant’s specification does not disclose that these two embodiments can be used together, or how to use these two embodiments together. In the amended independent claims, Applicant discloses that the acquired material distribution “includ[es] information on a building material, in addition to a three-dimensional model of a building structure.” The term “includes” implies an “open list” of options that make up the material distribution. Thus, when taken in light of the Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the cited limitation is a material distribution that could comprise: (1) information on a building material from a BIM and 3D model, or (2) information on a building material from a BIM and 3D model alongside information on a building material deduced from image processing. As stated above, this second option is not enabled by the Specification.
In pursuit of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that amending the claims to specify one of the two alternative embodiments (1 or 7) appears to overcome this rejection.
The dependent claims are likewise rejected at least over their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
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 1,4-6,9,11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner will now proceed through the two-prong test laid out in MPEP § 2106 on claims 1 and 13, each representing different embodiments of the invention, to illustrate how the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is directed toward the judicial exception. However, the other independent and dependent claims are also directed to a judicial exception unless otherwise specified.
Firstly, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the present claim is a way of using a sensor mounted to a vehicle that pulls a trailer to determine a path.
Regarding Step 1, the present claims are directed to a device because they describe parts and their functional relationships. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Regarding Step 2A, the present claim recites a judicial exception because it is (1) directed to an abstract idea; and (2) it does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The present claim is (1) directed to an abstract idea, particularly a mental process. A mental process is any concept that could be interpreted as being performed by the human mind or by a human mind with a physical aid. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are directed to an abstract idea:
“ . . . a material of an object . . . is identified, a magnitude of error . . . is estimated . . . , and a map value . . . is set . . . , and
a value indicating that an object is present is set as a value of a map . . . and, if the magnitude of error is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold, a value indicating that an object is present is not set as a value of the map . . . .”
Similarly, Claim 13 recites the following limitations that are directed to an abstract idea:
“ . . . a material of an object . . . is identified, a magnitude of an error . . . is estimated . . . , and a map value . . . is set based on the estimated magnitude of the error . . . .”
These limitations, when broadly interpreted, do not preclude a human from, in their mind or with a pen and piece of paper, looking at some measurement values alongside a material distribution and making a series of judgments based upon the measurement and material distribution. Therefore, the claims are directed to a mental process because of the high level of generality with which the limitations are recited, and analysis proceeds to step (2).
The present claim also (2) fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In a computing environment, a mental process may be integrated into a practical application where the claim goes “beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment . . . .” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Both claims 1 and 13 (each representative of one claimed embodiment of the invention) attempt to integrate the exception into a practical application with the following limitations:
“An information processing apparatus . . . a movable apparatus . . .
one or more memories storing instructions; and
one or more processors executing the instructions . . . .”
However, these limitations do not appear to the Examiner as more than generally linking the mental process defined in step 2A to a generic robotic computing environment by broadly reciting computer parts and their functions as well as the environment of a movable apparatus. Therefore, the present claim does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The present claim reciting to a mental process generically applied on computer hardware, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements of computer components to an abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when, considered as a whole, the claim appears to be “[s]imply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.” MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A). Claims 1 and 13 both recite the following additional elements:
“to acquire a material distribution including information on a building material, in addition to a three-dimensional model of a building structure in an environment in which the movable apparatus moves;
to acquire a measurement value measured by a sensor disposed on the movable apparatus; and
creating the travel path based on the measurement value and the material distribution . . . .”
However, these elements appear to be appending the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of data gathering and processing, at a high level of generality, to the mental process of the present claim.
Additionally, Claim 13 recites the following additional element:
“ . . . to display information on an error distribution of the measurement value with respect to an orientation of the movable apparatus by using a display unit.”
However, this element appears to be appending the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of presenting gathered data, at a high level of generality, to the mental process of the present claim.
Therefore, the present claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner notes that while the above analysis was applied to claims 1 and 13 in particular, further steps recited in the other independent and dependent claims all feature similar issues that bar them from being considered eligible subject matter unless specified below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yuasa, Junichi. JP 2018115894 A. MAGNETIC FIELD MAP UPDATING METHOD AND MAGNETIC FIELD MAP UPDATING DEVICE. A BIM is used to model expected magnetic field disturbances caused by various construction materials used in a building. An apparatus can use this expected magnetic field map for localization by comparing measured magnetic values with expected magnetic values. When the apparatus reaches a designated calibration location, it compares the measured magnetic value with the expected measured value to look for a deviation. If there is enough deviation, the apparatus updates the expected magnetic field map, allowing the field map to evolve with changes to the building. However, Yuasa does not teach displaying an error distribution with respect to device orientation, nor does it teach determining whether or not an object is present based on a threshold amount of error.
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 HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights