Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is an answer to a communication on 12/09/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
3. Applicant filed an IDS on 12/09/2024; it is considered.
Claimed Interpretations
4. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., for BRI, “a data capturing unit” (e.g., in claims 1, 7, and 13) is interpreted as a general unit to receive data. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
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.
6. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., claiming a mathematical calculation) without significantly more
A. Per represented claim 1: Applicant claims a computer- implemented method for generating a map, comprises:
A computer-implemented method for capturing data of surroundings by means of
a data capturing unit 112(a), 112(b) , wherein the method comprises:
receiving path information regarding a predefined data capturing path, the path
information comprising at least coordinates, in particular GNSS coordinates, of a plurality
of points of the predefined data capturing path; and
automatically performing a navigation and data capturing procedure,
wherein the navigation and data capturing procedure comprises:
continuously monitoring a current position of the data capturing unit;
calculating a transfer path from the current position to a start position of the
predefined data capturing path;
continuously providing navigation commands to a user to guide the user along the
transfer path;
continuously determining, based on the path information and on the continuously
monitored position, whether the data capturing unit has reached the start position;
if the data capturing unit has reached the start position, providing a start command
to the data capturing unit, the start command causing the data capturing unit to capture data
of the surroundings;
continuously providing navigation commands to the user to guide the user to an
end position of the predefined data capturing path; and
if the data capturing unit has reached the end position, providing an end command
to the data capturing unit, the end command causing the data capturing unit to end capturing data of the surroundings.
A1. 101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (a process) therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
A2. 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 a limitation that recite an abstract idea (emphasized with bold-face terms) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Represented claim 1 recites a broad data mining concept of:
Determining a geographical point to begin capturing surround data; and
Determining a geographical point to end capturing surround data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mathematical relationship” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation using a calculation. Specifically, the mathematical relationships encompass a generic calculation/computation of related values. Finally, a solution for that calculating step supporting a broad intention of “capturing data of surrounding environment” as described in that context. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
B. 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 data capturing unit” to implement an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., determining a stating/ending point to start/stop capturing surrounding environments), or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a 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 “determining”/judgement (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”); the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
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.
C. 101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, 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: “capturing data of the surroundings” for a match by a navigation processor is sent to a vehicle control system for use in navigating the vehicle platform (or turning OFF surrounding cameras if not necessary).
This limitation amounts to nothing more than mere steps/instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor for an output. Mere steps/instructions to apply an exception using a generic data capturing unit cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
D. A computer system, and a computer program product claims 13-15 comprise similar limitations as in rejected claim 1; therefore, similar rationales set forth are also applied for 35 USC §101 rejections.
E. Dependent claims 2-12 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 well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a specific practical application . Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationales as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
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.
7. Claims 1-2 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. These below claims’ limitations comprise unclear intention for a specific field of application.
Applicant claims a number of steps for data mining comprising a step of determining a point to starting capture surrounding images, and determining to stop capturing surrounding images at an ending position. The examiner is unclear about what is the inventive concept that applicant wants to claim here?
Claim interpretations
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
8. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
9. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “...a data capturing unit...” (see claims 1, 7 or 13-14).
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
10. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
11. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function (i.e., pending claim 6: “”, acoustically by means of an audio signal” ,“haptically by means of a vibration signal”).
12. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
13. 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) is/are: “...by means of a data capturing unit...” (see pending independent claim 1 line 1), and a computing unit “configure to” (see claim 13 lines 3-4).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding “unique” structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
14. 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.
15. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
16. Claims 1, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musk et al (US Pub 20200257317 A1 – hereafter “TESLA’317) in view of HERRAIZ MARTÍN (ES 2525738 B2 – hereafter HERRAIZ’738)
A, Per independent claims 1, and 13- 15: A computer- implemented method for capturing data of surroundings by means of a data capturing unit (similar as Tesla’s autonomous vehicle in Tesla’317) , wherein the method comprises:
receiving path information regarding a predefined data capturing path, the path information comprising at least coordinates, in particular GPS coordinates, of a plurality of points of the predefined data capturing path (e.g. receiving an order comprising a rider’s pickup’s location, then using assistance of a GPS to the pickup’s address, see Tesla’317 para.[0084]); and
automatically performing a navigation and data capturing procedure (with Tesla’s autonomous vehicle; see Tesla’317 para.[0084]), wherein the navigation and data capturing procedure comprises:
continuously monitoring a current position of the data capturing unit (e.g., continuously monitoring a current position/place of that Tesla vehicle).
Tesla’317 fails to disclose about calculating a transfer path from the current position to a start position of the predefined data capturing path; however, Herraiz’738 suggest this claimed idea on page 21 lines 17-20 (e.g., approaching a rider’s address from another place with an available vehicle having shortest distance/least time (see Herraiz’738 page 21 lines 17-20 “To determine the “distance to the route from a point” of origin or destination of a request, or 30 From an alternative delivery point for a request, the distance from that point to the nearest point through which the vehicle has to pass when traveling its planned route will be calculated”).
Tesla’317 also suggests steps:
continuously providing navigation commands to a user to guide the user along the
transfer path (e.g., approaching a rider from a different place with a shortest/least time consumption to pick-up a passenger with a Tesla’s autonomous vehicle – see Tesla’317 claim 1);
continuously determining, based on the path information and on the continuously
monitored position, whether the data capturing unit has reached the start position (e.g., using a GPS map for guiding that Tesla vehicle to pick-up a passenger to begin a trip/a start position - see Tesla’317 para.[0084]);
if the data capturing unit has reached the start position, providing a start command
to the data capturing unit, the start command causing the data capturing unit to capture data
of the surroundings (e.g., activating/turning a camera ON to capture surrounding environment, see Tesla’317 para.[0051]);
continuously providing navigation commands to the user to guide the user to an
end position of the predefined data capturing path (see Tesla’317 para.[0014]); and
if the data capturing unit has reached the end position, providing an end command
to the data capturing unit, the end command causing the data capturing unit to end capturing data of the surrounding sensors (e.g., deactivating a camera to NOT capture surrounding environment when finishing a trip with that Tesla vehicle, see Tesla’317 para.[0015], [0077])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Tesla’317 with HERRAIZ’738 to calculate for a vehicle’s distance to a passenger’s address equating to a reality time in order to limit that passenger waiting time for a ride.
B: Per claims 13 15: These claims are implementations of claim 1’s steps into a computer system , or a non-transitory machine readable medium with imbedded instructions for capturing data of surroundings by means of a data capturing having similar limitations as claim 1; therefore, similar rationales and references set forth are applied for 35 USC 103 rejections.
C. Per dependent claim 2: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Tesla’317 also suggests that a current position of the data capturing unit is continuously monitored by a GPS (see Tesla’317 para.[0084])
D. Per dependent claim 3: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Tesla’317 also suggests about generating a particularly colored 2D to display on a vehicle’s screen (see Tesla’317 [0034], [0084]).
Note: 2D cameras and/or 3D model of the surroundings by means of the data captured by the data capturing unit (using a Google Map vehicle as below[AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
288
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See also Tesla’317 [0077])
E. Per dependent claim 4: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Tesla’317 also suggests a data capturing unit being mounted on a transport means controlled by the user” ((see Tesla’317” [0077]” vision sensors 701 may be affixed to the front, sides, rear, and/or roof, etc. of the vehicle in forward-facing, rear-facing, side-facing, etc. directions”), wherein the transport means is a vehicle (see Tesla’317” [0077])
PNG
media_image1.png
288
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
G. Per dependent claim 6: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Tesla’317 also suggests that commands are provided:
acoustically by means of an audio signal (see TESLA’317 para [0025])- visually by means of visualization on a display (see TESLA’317 para. [0091],[0093]).
H. Per dependent claim 7: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Tesla’317 also suggests a step of providing a notification to the user (e.g., an alert (see TESLA’317 para [0025]); or the data capturing of the surroundings is disturbed or prevented or blocked by an obstacle (e.g., “the vehicle is rerouted” (see TESLA’317 para [0073]); or intermediate end command is provided is defined as intermediate end position (e.g., “the vehicle is re-routed” in order to continue to travel to a destination (see TESLA’317 para [0073])..
I. Per dependent claim 8: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 7 are incorporated.
Tesla’317 also suggests a feature of continuously providing navigation commands to the user to guide the user (e.g., a display with the vehicle heading to a determined destination: if the user has left the predefined data capturing path (e.g., a construction site, need to reroute see TESLA’317 para [0073]) then back on the pre-defined data capturing path;
if the data capturing of the surroundings has been disturbed or prevented by an obstacle, along the predefined data capturing path past the obstacle (e.g., blocked by an obstacle (e.g., “the vehicle is rerouted” (see TESLA’317 para [0073]).
J. Per dependent claim 9: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Tesla’317 also suggests a step of receiving information regarding the distance which has to be covered to traverse the predefined data capturing path, in particular the distance from the start position to the end position (e.g., TESLA’317 [0014] teaches a distance to travel during a trip)
K. Per dependent claim 10: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Tesla’317 also suggests a step of receiving information regarding the expected time required to traverse the predefined data capturing path, or the time from the start position to the end position (e.g., less consumption of time – e.g., “the arrival time is configured with a threshold time to allow for differences between the estimated travel time and the actual travel time” see TESLA’317 [0016],[0038])
L. Per dependent claim 11: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Tesla’317 also suggests a step of providing information regarding how a plurality of predefined data capturing paths are arrangeable such that the data of the surroundings, from which a particularly colored 2D , is captured efficiently,such that the shortest/less possible distance has to be covered and/or the shortest/less/least possible time is required (see TESLA’317 [0014],[0044])
M. Per dependent claim 12: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Applicant claims that path information comprises a course of the predefined data capturing path within an environmental map,wherein the environmental map is :a land map; TESLA’317 suggests this idea (e.g., a route map having a stop sign, or a parking space, or a traffic light ”see TESLA’317 [0054]);
17. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TESLA’317 in view of HERRAIZ’738, and in view of Nishita et al (US Pat. 11822351 B2)
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
TESLA’317 does not disclose that the data capturing unit comprises one or more laser scanners and/or one or more cameras ; however, Nishita‘351 suggest that feature (see Nishita‘351, col.6 lines 40-56, col.14 lines 51-57) and is configured to capture 3D point-cloud data (see Nishita‘351, col.18 lines 7-11).
Tesla’317 also teaches of scanning image data of the surroundings (see TESLA’317 para [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Tesla’317 with HERRAIZ’738 and with Nishita’351 to capture 3D photos and storing in a cloud for faster retrieving 3D photos to compare to a vehicle obtained 3D photo.
Conclusion
18. Claims 1-15 are rejected.
19. The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 10:00AM- 6:00PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 PATER. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664