CTNF 19/098,058 CTNF 89778 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims This action is in response to applicant’s filing on April 02, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows. Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1. Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 1 Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of generate an image map of the target space based on the robot pose data and the target image as recited in independent claims 1 and 12. The steps fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc ., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams , 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer , 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”). Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource , 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson .’’). Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 2 Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). In addition, limitations reciting data gathering such as “obtain robot pose data of a position and a direction of a robot; obtain a target image corresponding to a target space where the robot is located from an image acquisition device of the robot; and obtain a global position of the robot based on the image map and a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) map obtained from a LiDAR of the robot” are also insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gather data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds , 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource , 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc ., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the limitation “transmitting, by the computing system, the digitized representations of the first high frequency sensor outputs to a computer-based diagnostic system” merely uses generic computing components (“computing system”) but also constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski , 561 U.S. at 610-11 (quoting Diehr , 450 U.S. at 191-92). Revised Guidance Step 2B Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: (1) “computer system”; (2) “memory” and (3) “aircraft” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. ( See , e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); ( see also , ¶¶ 95-98, 199-202 of the specification). See Alice , 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed. The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175 (1081), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook , 437 U.S. 584 (1078), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment As for dependent claims 2-3 and 13-14, these claims include all the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims also fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the invention of the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 4 and 15, however, recites structure used by the global localization apparatus. This structure is not directed to basic concepts that are similar to any abstract ideas previously identified by the courts. Accordingly, claims 4 and 15 are patent eligible as well as dependent claims 5-11 and 16-20. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al., US 2024/0160222 A1 in view of Mobiltech Co Ltd, WO 2021221333 A1 (Hereinafter referenced as Mobiltech) . Regarding claim 1 , Verma teaches a global localization apparatus comprising: a memory storing computer-executable instructions ; (Verma, see at least ¶ [0064] “The localization controller 380 is illustrated in more detail in FIG. 3 b. The processor 382 (which may be referred to interchangeably as a central processor unit or CPU) is in communication with memory devices including secondary storage 384, read only memory (ROM) 386, random access memory (RAM) 388, input/output (I/O) devices 390, and network connectivity devices 392. The processor 382 may be implemented as one or more CPU chips.”) and at least one processor , (Verma, see at least ¶ [0064] “The localization controller 380 is illustrated in more detail in FIG. 3 b. The processor 382 (which may be referred to interchangeably as a central processor unit or CPU) is in communication with memory devices including secondary storage 384, read only memory (ROM) 386, random access memory (RAM) 388, input/output (I/O) devices 390, and network connectivity devices 392. The processor 382 may be implemented as one or more CPU chips.”) wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, enable the apparatus to: obtain robot pose data of a position and a direction of a robot ; (Verma, see at least ¶ [0062] “The localization system 101 includes a localization controller 380 in the form of a computing device, the LiDAR device 203 , an in-built wheel odometer 201 , a pose data update module 205 , and two probabilistic filters 207 , 209 , specifically a distance-based filter 207 , and a random filter 209 . The localization controller 380 is in communication with each of the in-built wheel odometer 201 , the LiDAR 203 , the pose data update module 205 , the distance-based filter 207 , and the random filter 209 .”) Verma does not specifically teach the following. However, Mobiltech teaches obtain a target image corresponding to a target space where the robot is located from an image acquisition device of the robot ; (Mobiltech, see at least page 4 ¶ 25 “Meanwhile, referring to FIG. 3 , the controller may form first map information based on the operation described in FIG. 2 , and may form second map information based on information acquired in real time through only the camera (S11). generate an image map of the target space based on the robot pose data and the target image ; (Mobiltech, see at least page 2 ¶ 11 “The present invention provides a real-time robot position prediction method that can efficiently and accurately generate map information and quickly and accurately predict the robot's position by matching the generated map information with an image acquired by a camera.”) and obtain a global position of the robot based on the image map and a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) map obtained from a LiDAR of the robot . (Mobiltech, see at least page 3 ¶ 15 “The real-time robot position prediction method according to an embodiment can efficiently and accurately predict the position of the robot by efficiently generating map information and matching the generated map information with the image acquired by the camera.”) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verma with those of Mobiltech as both relate to determining robot position using sensors. (Mobiltech page 2 ¶ 3) In addition, this would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Claim 12 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 1 above . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claims 2-3 and 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4-11 and 15-20are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice. /BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/098,058 Page 2 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/098,058 Page 3 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/098,058 Page 4 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/098,058 Page 5 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/098,058 Page 6 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/098,058 Page 7 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/098,058 Page 8 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/098,058 Page 9 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/098,058 Page 10 Art Unit: 3668
Prosecution Insights