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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/21/2025, 5/30/2025, 12/5/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the different illustrations of lines in Fig. 4 do not have corresponding labels and merely appear as circle and oval shapes being drawn and label for Fig 5 appear to have been separated from the drawing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-8 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11. A processor, the processor being configured to run a program stored in a memory; wherein when running, the program executes the method for predicting a loop closure path as claimed in claim 1
Claim 1. A method for predicting a loop closure path, comprising:
detecting, in a process of simultaneous localization and mapping, whether a scanning movement trajectory of a scanning device has not passed through a start position on a scanning path for a second time within a preset duration; and
predicting a loop closure path when it is detected that the scanning movement trajectory of the scanning device has not passed through the start position for the second time within the preset duration.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of detecting, in a process of simultaneous localization and mapping, whether a scanning movement trajectory of a scanning device has not passed through a start position on a scanning path for a second time within a preset duration; and
predicting a loop closure path when it is detected that the scanning movement trajectory of the scanning device has not passed through the start position for the second time within the preset duration. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data obtained, analyzing the data and forming a simple judgement, as in detecting certain event or patterns from the data that the device has not passed through a start position on a scanning path and made a prediction. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim 11 recites additional elements or steps of obtaining, by a processor, a memory. The “processor” and “memory” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose control environment, i.e. a computer. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the detecting and predicting steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the processor that perform the steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a computing environment. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere transmitting of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
In addition, claim 10 recites additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments using a generic or general-purpose data storage medium, i.e. a computer readable data storage device. The specification does not provide any indication that the non-transitory computer readable storage medium is anything other than a conventional computer readable data storage device within a vehicle.
Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 and 12-21 for claims 1 and 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 well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The further “generating prompt information”, “predicting”, “generating the first loop closure path”, “generating the second loop closure path”, and “marking” steps in the dependent claims direct to the same abstract idea without significantly more than the same limitations discussed above for claim 1.
In addition, claims 4, 5, 8, 17, 18 and 21, recite additional element of acquiring position data and display the path steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determine step, and for displaying the evaluated result from the determining and generating step), and amount to mere data gathering and post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In step 2B, the acquiring and displaying steps is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the system comprising a computer including a processor and a memory is anything other than a conventional computer within a computing environment. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network and displaying information is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Therefore, dependent claims 1-8 and 11-21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 10.
The 101 rejection may be overcome by positively claiming the alternate limitations of “controlling the scanning device to move…”.
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, 8, 10, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baroudi et al. (US 2017/0246742 A1).
For claims 1, 10 and 11, Baroudi discloses a processor, the processor being configured to run a program stored in a memory; wherein when running, the program executes the method for predicting a loop closure path, comprising: detecting, in a process of simultaneous localization and mapping, whether a scanning movement trajectory of a scanning device has not passed through a start position on a scanning path for a second time within a preset duration (Para. 0074, where the robot keeps track of its moving coordinates and is aware of its starting location associated with time of operations); and
predict a loop closure path when it is detected that the scanning movement trajectory of the scanning device has not passed through the start position for the second time within the preset duration (Para. 0066, 0124, where the robot route and move to return to the start position after predetermined amount of time of operation, which is the robot determined the device has not passed through the start position within preset duration and return back to the position to complete the loop closure path).
For claims 2 and 15, Baroudi discloses the method as claimed in claims 1 and 10, wherein the method further comprises: generating prompt information when it is detected that the scanning movement trajectory of the scanning device has not passed through the start position for the second time within the preset duration (Para. 0068, where alert notification is initiated in response to the scanning operations and statuses relate to the robot operations, is displaying information relate to the movement trajectory and scanning device status, which imply the robot returning to the start position would be prompted or notified to the operator).
For claims 8, Baroudi discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein after predicting the loop closure path, the method further comprises: displaying the loop closure path; and/or controlling the scanning device to move according to the loop closure path (Para. 0124, 0137, where the robot along with the scanning device is controlled to move according to the paths and display and input by the user is provided to control the robot, which imply that the robot paths are provided to the operators).
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.
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.
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 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baroudi et al. (US 2017/0246742 A1).
For claims 3 and 16, Baroudi discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein predicting the loop closure path, comprises: predicting at least one of: a first loop closure path and a second loop closure path; wherein the loop closure path is a local loop closure path (Para. 0054, 0071), but does not specifically disclose the loop closure path is a global loop closure path. However, Baroudi discloses the paths and positions of the robot is known to use GPS, a global positioning coordinates, though is not being utilized in the prior art for their applications (Para. 0006, 0013, 0023). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any or both or these reference systems available and known for their applications based on their advantages and disadvantages.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 12-14 and 17-21 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2020/0234459 A1) Kanikal et al. discloses a scanning system repeatedly return to the starting position and determine loops closure errors.
(US 2020/0311485 A1) Wang et al. discloses a scanning system that predicts the scanning device return to the start position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
