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 .
Claims 1-3 and 6-14 have been examined.
Claims 4-5 have been canceled.
Claim 14 has been added.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All other arguments are moot as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been rendered moot by the 07/09/2026 claim amendments.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues
“With respect to claims 12 and 13, these claims require computational steps that cannot be performed mentally. The amended claims require acquiring map information created using SLAM that includes a plurality of keyframes, and acquiring starting position and orientation candidates corresponding to positions and orientations of those keyframes. SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) is a computer-implemented technology that uses sensors such as stereo cameras and LiDAR to simultaneously estimate a movable apparatus's position and build a map of the surrounding environment. A keyframe is a data structure comprising image data, the position and orientation of a movable apparatus at the time of capturing the image data, image coordinate information of feature points, and three-dimensional position and orientation information calculated by stereo vision. See Specification, [0024]. These technical operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Further, the amended claims recite setting a priority for each starting position and orientation candidate "based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation." This involves computational evaluation of multiple candidates using evaluation formulas that calculate position and orientation differences between candidates and reference positions. A human cannot practically evaluate multiple starting position and orientation candidates derived from keyframes in a SLAM map and calculate priorities based on geometric relationships without the aid of a computer”.
The arguments are not persuasive. Regarding the argument “This involves computational evaluation of multiple candidates using evaluation formulas that calculate position and orientation differences between candidates and reference positions. A human cannot practically evaluate multiple starting position and orientation candidates derived from keyframes in a SLAM map and calculate priorities based on geometric relationships without the aid of a computer”, no specific “evaluation formulas” are claimed, and additionally, no step of “evaluate multiple starting position and orientation candidates derived from keyframes in a SLAM map” is claimed, as the claim does not require deriving “multiple starting position and orientation candidates” from “keyframes”. Therefore, this argument is moot as it is not directed to the claims as written.
Claim 1 does recite “acquire, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes”, however, the “positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes” are simply positions and orientations that may somehow “correspond” to the “plurality of keyframes”, which does not require any actual processing or evaluation of the “plurality of keyframes”, and a user may simply mentally identify positions and orientations in an area that may “correspond” to the “plurality of keyframes”, which does not require any specific evaluation of any keyframe, and can be achieved by a user simply identifying all “positions and orientations” in an area, which can be achieved mentally by simply looking at or thinking of the area, where the “keyframes” may correspond to any of the mentally identified “positions and orientations” by the simple fact that the “keyframes” are associated with the same area. Therefore, the user does not need to perform any evaluation of the “keyframes” to mentally perform the abstract idea.
Furthermore, with respect to Claim 1, the limitation “map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes” and the limitation “acquire, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes” does not require any SLAM process to be performed by the claimed invention, as the “map information” is created “in advance”. The claim requires simply performing data gathering of the “map information including a plurality of keyframes”, and the “positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes” are simply positions and orientations that may somehow “correspond” to the “plurality of keyframes”, which does not require any particular processing or evaluation of the “plurality of keyframes” to determine the “positions and orientations” as already explained above.
Furthermore, the determination of a “reference work start position and orientation” may be performed mentally by a user, for example, by simply determining a location and orientation in a room or other area, which is a trivial process to perform mentally.
Also, regarding the “set a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation” limitation, a user may mentally set the priority by, for example, simply mentally determining positions and orientations that are close to or at the mentally determined “reference work start position and orientation”, which is a trivial process to perform mentally. For example, a user may mentally observe or think of the spatial dimensions of a room or other area and mentally compare the “reference work start position and orientation” to all mentally determined “starting position and orientation candidates” and mentally determine the “priority”. And again, the “plurality of starting position and orientation candidates” are not required to be derived from some particular analysis of the “keyframes”.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“The amended claims recite a specific technical improvement in the field of autonomous robot navigation. As described in the specification, the prior art method for determining the starting point of work based on a work region and traveling prohibited region could result in failure of self- position estimation, preventing work from being started” and
“This is not merely a generic computer recited at a high level of generality, but a specific machine that controls a movable apparatus such as an autonomous cleaning robot. The determined starting position and orientation is used by the movable apparatus to start actual physical work in the real world, such as floor cleaning”.
The arguments are not persuasive. No control of any “movable apparatus such as an autonomous cleaning robot” is claimed, therefore, these arguments are not directed to the claims as written and are then moot. The additional elements amount to merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea and adding insignificant extra solution activity, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“For similar reasons, the amended claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The claims do not merely recite a generic computer implementing an abstract idea. Rather, apparatus claim 1 recites a specific information processing apparatus with structural components configured to perform the claimed operations, and claims 12 and 13 recite a specific ordered combination of steps that: (1) acquire map information created using SLAM including keyframes, (2) derive starting position and orientation candidates from those keyframes, (3) determine a reference work start position based on work setting information, (4) set priorities based on the relationship between candidates and the reference position, and (5) select a starting position based on priority. This specific ordered combination provides a technical solution to a technical problem in autonomous robot navigation, namely ensuring successful self-position estimation while minimizing unnecessary travel”.
The arguments are not persuasive. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as the additional elements amount to merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea and adding insignificant extra solution activity, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
All other arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claims 1-3 and 6-14 are identified as being allowable over the prior art, but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. See below.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “for starting the work in the work region” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “for starting the work in the work region” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation “for starting the work in the work region” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 6-14 are allowable over the prior art, but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Karapetyan et al. (2022/0080592). Relevant prior art found in an updated search is Eoh et al. (2020/0376676).
While Karapetyan et al. does teach “starting position and orientation candidates” and determining “one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region” (“…an estimated starting point associated with that landmark”, see P[0145] and P[0154], and “…it can be desirable to path plan from an estimated current robot pose P to multiple candidate poses (1, 2, 3) near the desired starting point 0”, see P[0155] and “The map formed from the sensor data can indicate locations of traversable and non-traversable space within the environment”, see P[0046] and (“…it may be desirable to path plan to multiple candidate starting point locations associated with a specified end of that straight wall segment landmark feature”, see P[0154] and “…it can be desirable to path plan from an estimated current robot pose P to multiple candidate poses (1, 2, 3) near the desired starting point 0”, see P[0155]), Karapetyan et al. does not teach “a work setting information acquisition unit configured to acquire work setting information including a type of work to be performed by [[a]] the movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed” and “determine a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information”. Karapetyan et al. uses the candidate poses for localization and for wall-following (Karapetyan et al.; see P[0153]-P[0154]), and while the wall-following occurs during “work” such as cleaning (Karapetyan et al.; “…the robot re-observed a wall during normal cleaning mission operation—not during a wall-based relocalization event…”, see P[0132]), Karapetyan et al. does not teach the use of “work setting information including a type of work to be performed by [[a]] the movable apparatus” to determine a “reference work start position and orientation”.
Furthermore, Karapetyan et al. does not expressly recite “acquire, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes” and any “relationship” between a “reference work start position and orientation” and “each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates” as in the claimed “set a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation”. Although Karapetyan et al. does teach that mapping data forming the map used by Karapetyan et al. is generated using “SLAM techniques” (Karapetyan et al.; see P[0047]), Karapetyan et al. does not expressly recite any determination of a “priority” based on a “relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation”.
Prior art Eoh et al. (2020/0376676) does teach comparing candidate positions or poses to information stored in a map storage (Eoh et al.; see P[0143]-P[0146]), however, Eoh et al. also does not teach the claimed determination of a “priority” based on a “relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation”.
Furthermore, no clear motivation to modify the prior art to teach all amended limitations could be found in the prior art.
Therefore, the claims are allowable over the prior art, but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-3 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See below.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is 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. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a computer or controller that controls a movable apparatus to perform a work; and
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as:
a work setting information acquisition unit configured to acquire work setting information including a type of work to be performed by the movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed, and map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes, and
a starting position and orientation calculation unit configured to:
acquire, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes;
determine a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information;
set a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation; and
determine, based on the priority, one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region.
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. Specifically, regarding the “determine a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information” limitation, a user may mentally determine a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information. Furthermore, regarding the “set a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation” limitation, a user may set a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation. Furthermore, regarding the “determine, based on the priority, one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region” limitation, a user may mentally determine, based on the priority, one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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:
a computer or controller that controls a movable apparatus to perform a work; and
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as:
a work setting information acquisition unit configured to acquire work setting information including a type of work to be performed by the movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed, and map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes, and
a starting position and orientation calculation unit configured to:
acquire, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes;
determine a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information;
set a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation; and
determine, based on the priority, one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region.
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 limitation “An information processing apparatus comprising: a computer or controller that controls a movable apparatus to perform a work”, the “computer or controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer used to perform the abstract idea. Regarding the additional limitation “at least one processor or circuit configured to function as”, the “at least one processor or circuit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to perform the abstract idea. Regarding the additional limitation “a work setting information acquisition unit configured to”, the “work setting information acquisition unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer used to perform the abstract idea. The additional limitation “acquire work setting information including a type of work to be performed by the movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed, and map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “a starting position and orientation calculation unit configured to”, the “starting position and orientation calculation unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer used to perform the abstract idea. The additional limitation the “acquire, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes” 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 – 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 “computer or controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer used to perform the abstract idea, the “at least one processor or circuit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to perform the abstract idea, the “work setting information acquisition unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer used to perform the abstract idea, the additional limitation “acquire work setting information including a type of work to be performed by the movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed, and map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the “starting position and orientation calculation unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer used to perform the abstract idea, the additional limitation the “acquire, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 6-11 and 14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 2-3, 6-11 and 14 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 practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 6-11 and 14 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-3, 6-11 and 14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
As per Claim 2, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally evaluate a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on the number and distribution of feature points included in a key frame corresponding to each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 3, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The “notifies” step is directed to transmitting data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 6, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally set the priority based on the type of the work. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 7, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally set the priority based on a shape, arrangement, or a movement pattern of the work region. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 8, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally set the priority based on the reference work start position and orientation of the movable apparatus. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 9, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally create the map information, and the limitation “using SLAM” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The Examiner notes that there are no limitations directed to any device or structure used to perform a “SLAM” operation, therefore, the claim amounts to merely gathering data related to a SLAM operation and creating the “map information”. The Examiner also notes that a user may simply look at gathered SLAM data and mentally create the map information, which would be equivalent to “using SLAM” to create the map information. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 10, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally create map information that includes point cloud feature information based on point cloud data acquired from a distance measuring sensor, by simply looking at the gathered point cloud data and performing a mental process to create the map information. The Examiner notes that the “distance measuring sensor” is not claimed as part of the “apparatus” of the preamble, and therefore amounts to merely an intended source of a data gathering operation of the point cloud data. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 11, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The limitation “the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as, a display control unit configured to cause a display unit to display a plurality of [[a]] starting position and orientation candidates” is directed to the “at least one processor or circuit” already addressed in the parent claim, and the limitation “display a plurality of [[a]] starting position and orientation candidates” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 14, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally set higher priority for the starting position and orientation candidate closer to the reference work start position and orientation. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 12 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 12 recites:
An information processing method comprising:
acquiring work setting information including a type of work to be performed by a movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed, and map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes;
acquiring, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes;
determining a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information;
setting a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation; and
determining, based on the priority, one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region.
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. Specifically, regarding the “determining a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information” limitation, a user may mentally determine a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information. Furthermore, regarding the “setting a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation” limitation, a user may mentally set a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation. Furthermore, regarding the “determining, based on the priority, one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region”, a user may mentally determine, based on the priority, one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea. Had there been any additional limitations, such additional limitations would be underlined portions while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea” in the following:
An information processing method comprising:
acquiring work setting information including a type of work to be performed by a movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed, and map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes;
acquiring, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes;
determining a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information;
setting a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation; and
determining, based on the priority, one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region.
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.
The additional limitation “acquiring work setting information including a type of work to be performed by a movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed, and map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation “acquiring, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes” 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 – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 12 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 limitation “acquiring work setting information including a type of work to be performed by a movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed, and map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the additional limitation “acquiring, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 12 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 13 is 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 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 13 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing following processes:
acquiring work setting information including a type of work to be performed by a movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed, and map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes;
acquiring, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes;
determining a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information;
setting a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation; and
determining, based on the priority, one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region.
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. Specifically, regarding the “determining a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information” limitation, a user may mentally determine a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information. Furthermore, regarding the “setting a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation” limitation, a user may mentally set a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation. Furthermore, regarding the “determining, based on the priority, one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region”, a user may mentally determine, based on the priority, one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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”):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing following processes:
acquiring work setting information including a type of work to be performed by a movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed, and map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes;
acquiring, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes;
determining a reference work start position and orientation for the work based on the work setting information;
setting a priority for each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates based on a relationship between each of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates and the reference work start position and orientation; and
determining, based on the priority, one of the plurality of starting position and orientation candidates as a starting position and orientation for starting the work in the work region.
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 limitation “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing following processes”, the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is recited at a high level of generality amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component, and this additional limitation and amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. The additional limitation “acquiring work setting information including a type of work to be performed by a movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed, and map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation “acquiring, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes” 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 – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 13 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 “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is recited at a high level of generality amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component, and this additional limitation and amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, the additional limitation “acquiring work setting information including a type of work to be performed by a movable apparatus, information specifying a work region in which the work is to be performed, and map information for self-position estimation created in advance using SLAM, the map information including a plurality of keyframes” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the additional limitation “acquiring, as a plurality of starting position and orientation candidates, positions and orientations corresponding to the plurality of keyframes” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 13 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights