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 .
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to boundary defining method (i.e., a method). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below with the category of abstract idea bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A boundary defining method, to be implemented by a boundary defining system that includes a positioning unit and a processing unit; the boundary defining method comprising:
(A) the processing unit obtaining a piece of positioning data generated by the positioning unit performing positioning according to a satellite signal group, wherein the piece of positioning data includes a path record and a signal status record, the path record indicates a circling path defining a circled area, and the signal status record indicates one or more risky path sections in the circling path that meet a poor signal condition;
(B) the processing unit, based on each risky path section indicated by the signal status record, determining an alternative path section corresponding to the risky path section and located within the circled area [mental process/step]; and
(C) the processing unit, based on at least the alternative path section(s), generating and outputting a piece of operating range data indicating an operating boundary [mental process/step],
wherein the operating boundary defines an operating area suitable for automatic movement of an autonomous mobile operation equipment, and that does not include the risky path section(s) [mental process/step].
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. The alternate path section determining process, operating range data piece generating and outputting process, and operating area defining process are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via computer. This invention relates to determining operating area suitable for autonomous operation, that avoids risky path section (Mental Process), there is no control of the vehicle being carried out. The processes can be performed mentally or in a computer.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A boundary defining method, to be implemented by a boundary defining system that includes a positioning unit and a processing unit; the boundary defining method comprising:
(A) the processing unit obtaining a piece of positioning data generated by the positioning unit performing positioning according to a satellite signal group, wherein the piece of positioning data includes a path record and a signal status record, the path record indicates a circling path defining a circled area, and the signal status record indicates one or more risky path sections in the circling path that meet a poor signal condition [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
(B) the processing unit, based on each risky path section indicated by the signal status record, determining an alternative path section corresponding to the risky path section and located within the circled area; and
(C) the processing unit, based on at least the alternative path section(s), generating and outputting a piece of operating range data indicating an operating boundary,
wherein the operating boundary defines an operating area suitable for automatic movement of an autonomous mobile operation equipment, and that does not include the risky path section(s).
The examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application because obtaining positioning data including a path record and a signal status record is a pre-solution activity (data gathering). There is no practical application as only the positioning data is obtained and used by the mental process.
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.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 6, 11, 12, 13, 14.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5, 7-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or mere extra-solution activities, such as, using RTK, basing on inward shrinkage distance, determining self-correcting path section, that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 12, 14 are directed to a computer program, i.e. “software per se”. “Software per se”, when claimed without any structural limitations, does not have a physical or tangible form. Therefore, it does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and is ineligible under 35 USC 101. see MPEP 2106.03.
If support is found within the specification, Applicant is advised to amend the claim(s) to recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, performs: [the claimed functions]”, or equivalent language. see MPEP 2106.03 (I). A claim directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium would comprise an article of manufacture and thus fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma (US 20230296785 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sharma discloses:
A boundary defining method, to be implemented by a boundary defining system that includes a positioning unit and a processing unit; the boundary defining method comprising {paragraph [0156]: determined location point (such as, for example, the location of the GNSS receiver) and the location of the car boundaries relative to the determined location point}:
(A) the processing unit obtaining a piece of positioning data generated by the positioning unit performing positioning according to a satellite signal group {abstract: receiving a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signal}, wherein the piece of positioning data includes a path record and a signal status record, the path record indicates a circling path defining a circled area {[0047]: indication of an area or volume (e.g., a circle or ellipse) within which UE 105 is expected to be located. [0112]: information about vehicle position, time, heading, speed, acceleration, predicted path. [0163]: overall path selection and rerouting}, and the signal status record indicates one or more risky path sections in the circling path that meet a poor signal condition {[0005]: sensor data… a signal strength of the GNSS signal greater than a fifth threshold value. [0086]: when the GNSS signal is weak, unavailable, or noisy (due to noise and interference). [0032]: Identifying spoofing signals or other anomalous signals can help a GNSS receiver mitigate the consequences of receiving such signals and avoid determining a wrong location fix (indicating risky path section). [0090]: This can cause vehicles that rely on GNSS navigation signals to stray off course, or in extreme cases, GNSS spoofing systems can take control of a navigation system and reroute a vehicle to an unintended location, thereby cause accidents or other mischief};
(B) the processing unit, based on each risky path section indicated by the signal status record, determining an alternative path section corresponding to the risky path section and located within the circled area {[0157]: Route server 1245, may receive current location and destination information, and provide routing information for the vehicle, alternative route data. [0163]: choose route options that avoid road hazard conditions}; and
(C) the processing unit, based on at least the alternative path section(s), generating and outputting a piece of operating range data indicating an operating boundary {[0047], [0156], [0162]: determine an approximate relative location and/or an approximate range. [0163]: provide information such as vehicle information, routing, location assistance, map data and environmental data… determine overall path selection and rerouting. [0170]: determines vehicle maneuver and path planning. Examiner notes that disclosure for boundaries, circling path defining a circled area, routing information and path planning imply generating and outputting operating range},
wherein the operating boundary defines an operating area suitable for automatic movement of an autonomous mobile operation equipment, and that does not include the risky path section(s) {[0032], [0030]: autonomous driving}.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 11, 12.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Sharma discloses: wherein in step (A), the positioning unit uses Real Time Kinematic (RTK) to perform positioning to generate the piece of positioning data, the satellite signal group includes one or more satellite signals from a satellite navigation system, and the poor signal condition is related to a quantity of the satellite signals {[0075]: Real Time Kinematic (RTK). [0062]: satellite signals. [0087]: Satellite signals may be unavailable… severely degraded}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 7.
Regarding claim 6, Sharma discloses: a boundary defining method, to be implemented by a boundary defining system that includes a positioning unit and a processing unit; the boundary defining method comprising {[0156]}: (A) the processing unit obtaining a piece of positioning data generated by the positioning unit performing positioning according to a satellite signal group, wherein the piece of positioning data includes a path record and a signal status record, the path record indicates a surrounding path defining a surrounded area, and the signal status record indicates one or more concerning path sections in the surrounding path that meet a poor signal condition {abstract, [0047], [0112], [0163], [0005], [0086], [0032], [0090]}; (B) the processing unit, based on each concerning path section indicated by the signal status record, determining a replacement path section corresponding to the concerning path section and located outside the surrounded area {[0157]. Examiner notes that since the surrounded area is an intended work area of the autonomous mobile operation equipment, determining a replacement path to be located outside the surrounded area is implied}; and (C) the processing unit, based on at least the replacement path section(s), generating and outputting a piece of prohibited range data indicating a prohibited boundary, wherein the prohibited boundary defines a prohibited area for prohibiting an autonomous mobile operation equipment from entering automatically, and does not include the concerning path section(s) {[0047], [0156], [0162], [0163], [0170], [0032], [0030]. Examiner notes that the prohibited range is implied by combination of operating range and concerning path sections}.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 13, 14.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Yang et al. (US 20210123742 A1) .
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Sharma does not disclose: wherein in step (B), for each risky path section, the processing unit determining the alternative path section corresponding to the risky path section is based on a location of the risky path section and a predetermined inward shrinkage distance, and the predetermined inward shrinkage distance is related to a separation distance between the risky path section and the alternative path section corresponding to the risky path section.
Yang teaches determining alternate path section in [0009]: compute… corrected path data, [0011]: signal strength of an external positioning signal is greater than a predefined strength threshold, positioning based on the external positioning signal so as to locate the processing module, and generating a first path, [0012]: signal strength of the external positioning signal is not greater than the predefined strength threshold, measurement of a variation in movement of the processing module, and generating a second path, [0014]: computing, based on the second path record and the coordinate set of the exact position of the processing module, corrected path data related to the second path record, and generating a movement path record based on the first path record and the corrected path data. Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate a circling path defining a circled area. Examiner notes that determining the alternative path section corresponding to the risky path section is based on a location of the risky path section and a predetermined inward shrinkage distance, and the predetermined inward shrinkage distance is related to a separation distance between the risky path section and the alternative path section corresponding to the risky path section is a design choice for the corrected path depending on the characteristic of work by the autonomous mobile operation equipment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corrected path of Yang to be inward shrinkage of the circling path and to incorporate the modification with the described invention of Sharma in order to avoid erroneous operation of the equipment near the risky path section.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, Yang teaches: wherein in step (B), each alternative path section and the risky path section corresponding to the alternative path section are spaced apart from each other {[0009], [0011], [0012], [0014], Figs. 5 and 6. Examiner notes that spacing apart is a design choice for determining corrected path}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the corrected path feature of Yang with the described invention of Sharma in order to avoid erroneous operation of the equipment near the risky path section.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1, Yang teaches: wherein in step (B), the processing unit further makes each section of a plurality of sections of the circling path that meets a specified correction condition serve as a specified to-be-corrected path section, and determines, based on each specified to-be-corrected path section, a self-correcting path section corresponding to the specified to-be-corrected path section and located within the circled area, wherein for each section of the circling path, the specified correction condition indicates that the processing unit has received, during a period of time when the section is positioned by the positioning unit, a specified correction command generated based on manual operation of a user, in step (C), the processing unit generating the piece of operating range data is based on at least the alternative path section(s) and the self-correcting path section(s), and the operating boundary indicated by the piece of operating range data does not include the risky path section(s) and the specified to-be-corrected path section(s) {[0009], [0011], [0012], [0014]. Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate a plurality of sections of the circling path. [0044] teaches a specified correction command generated based on manual operation of a user: the lawn mower 1 is operated by the user to move to leave the dead zone}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the corrected path and manual operation features of Yang with the described invention of Sharma in order to avoid erroneous operation of the equipment near the risky path section.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 6, Yang teaches: wherein in step (B), for each concerning path section, the processing unit determining the replacement path section corresponding to the concerning path section is based on a location of the concerning path section and a predetermined outward expansion distance, and the predetermined outward expansion distance is related to a separation distance between the concerning path section and the replacement path section corresponding to the concerning path section {[0009], [0011], [0012], [0014], Figs. 5 and 6.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corrected path of Yang to be outward expansion of the circling path and to incorporate the modification with the described invention of Sharma in order to avoid erroneous operation of the equipment near the risky path section.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 6, Yang teaches: wherein in step (B), each replacement path section and the concerning path section corresponding to the replacement path section are spaced apart from each other {[0009], [0011], [0012], [0014], Figs. 5 and 6}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the corrected path feature of Yang with the described invention of Sharma in order to avoid erroneous operation of the equipment near the risky path section.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 6, Yang teaches: wherein in step (B), the processing unit further makes each section of a plurality of sections of the surrounding path that meets a specified adjustment condition serve as a specified to-be-adjusted path section, and determines, based on each specified to-be-adjusted path section, a self-adjusting path section corresponding to the specified to-be-adjusted path section and located outside the surrounded area, wherein for each section of the surrounding path, the specified adjustment condition indicates that the processing unit has received, during a period of time when the section is positioned by the positioning unit, a specified adjustment command generated based on manual operation of a user, in step (C), the processing unit generating the piece of prohibited range data is based on at least the replacement path section(s) and the self-adjusting path section(s), and the prohibited boundary indicated by the piece of prohibited range data does not include the concerning path section(s) and the specified to- be-adjusted path section(s) {[0009], [0011], [0012], [0014]. Figs. 5 and 6, [0044]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the corrected path and manual operation features of Yang with the described invention of Sharma in order to avoid erroneous operation of the equipment near the risky path section.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./ /RUSSELL FREJD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights