CTNF 19/107,638 CTNF 93316 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The status of the claims is as follows: (a) Claims 1-13 remain pending. 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. Priority The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c). Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 02/28/2025 and 10/24/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form. Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a self-position identification unit that generates a divided map,” as recited in claim 1. “an action planning unit that selects a plurality of divided maps,” as recited in claim 10. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If the Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Analysis for Independent Claims 1, 12, and 13: Step 1 : Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) . Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 are directed to statutory categories. (Step 1: yes) Step 2A Prong One : Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental processes (MPEP 2106.04) . Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. The claims are directed to generating a divided map for each stable section in which a height or posture of a traveling robot is stable, and generating connection information indicating a positional relationship between the divided maps based on sensor information obtained during movement between the divided maps. The Examiner finds these limitations describe the collection of information (sensor information regarding movement and stability), analysis of that information (identifying stable sections and generating divided maps), and organization of the analyzed information into relationships (connection information indicating positional relationships between maps). Said steps can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, for example, by observing movement, noting stable positions, sketching segmented maps, and determining how those segments relate spatially. Accordingly, the Examiner finds the claims recite concepts involving observation, evaluation, and organization of information, which fall within the category of mental processes and therefore constitute an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two : Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although the claims recite an “information processing device,” a “computer,” and a “program,” these elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea. The claimed “self-position identification unit” is described functionally without any specific implementation or technological improvement to computer functionality or robotic operation. The claims do not recite any specific improvement to the functioning of a robot, sensor, or mapping technology. Rather, the claims merely use generic computing components to perform the abstract idea of generating and relating maps based on observed stability and movement. The Examiner finds there is no indication that the claimed invention improves the accuracy of sensors, enhances robot navigation in a technical manner, or provides a specific technical solution to a technological problem. Further, the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in any meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a technological environment (i.e., a traveling robot). Merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment does not amount to an integration into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements namely, the “information processing device,” “computer,” and “program” are generic computer components performing routine and conventional functions of receiving data, processing data, and generating output. The “self-position identification unit” is likewise a generic functional component that does not require any specialized hardware or unconventional arrangement. The claimed steps of generating maps and generating connection information based on sensor data represent routine data processing and analysis operations that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of data processing and robotics. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add any meaningful limitation beyond generally implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer system. The ordered combination merely performs the abstract idea using conventional computer operations. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Conclusion: The independent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1, 12, and 13 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-11: Step 1 : Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process , machine , manufacture , or composition of matter ) . The dependent claims are properly directed to claim 1. As a result, the dependent claims are properly directed to statutory classes. (Step 1: yes) Step 2A Prong One : Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts , mental processes , certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’” ) . The dependent claims continue to encompass the mental process established in the independent claim(s). The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for the independent claim(s) applies. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process. Step 2A Prong Two : Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . The dependent claims recite additional limitations, these limitations, when viewed both individually and in combination for the claim, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a result, the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the dependent claims fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually (i.e., within a claim) and as a whole (i.e., claim set), that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent claim analysis). As a result, the dependent claims fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate said claims into a practical application. Conclusion: The dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Yuki U.S. P.G. Publication 2024/0069564A1 (hereinafter, Yuki) . Regarding Claim 1 , Yuki describes an information processing device comprising: a self-position identification unit that generates a divided map for each stable section in which a height or a posture of a traveling robot is stable (vehicle (i.e., device) encompasses a self-position identification unit (i.e., 71), wherein the vehicle generates a map that can be divided based on a position (i.e., posture) of the traveling vehicle (i.e., robot), Yuki, Paragraphs 0083-0091) , and generates connection information indicating a positional relationship between the divided maps on a basis of sensor information obtained during movement between the divided maps (generate connection information (i.e., combining two rooms for a layout of the building), Yuki, Paragraphs 0152-0154 and Figure 4) . Regarding Claim 2 , Yuki describes the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the connection information includes a connection node set for each of the divided maps, and difference information regarding a difference between a position and a posture of the robot at the connection node serving as a connection source and a position and a posture of the robot at the connection node serving as a connection destination (connection information includes a connection node (e.g., door) set for the divided maps (i.e., room A and room B) and a position and posture of the robot serving as the connection destination (i.e., doorway for the robot), Yuki, Paragraphs 0152-0156 and Figures 4 and 5) . Regarding Claim 4 , Yuki describes the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the connection information includes a connection node set for each of the divided maps and marker position information indicating a positional relationship between the connection node and a marker (connection information includes a connection node (e.g., wall) and a marker (e.g., door) set for the divided maps (i.e., room A and room B) wherein a positional relationship exists between the connection node and the marker, Yuki, Paragraphs 0152-0156 and Figures 4 and 5) . Regarding Claim 5 , Yuki describes the information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the marker is a common marker observable from both of the connection node serving as a connection source and the connection node serving as a connection destination (connection information includes a connection node (e.g., wall) and a marker (e.g., door) set for the divided maps (i.e., room A and room B) wherein a positional relationship exists between the connection node and the marker, Yuki, Paragraphs 0152-0156 and Figures 4 and 5) , and the marker position information includes first difference information regarding a difference in position and posture between the robot and the common marker at the connection node serving as a connection source, and second difference information regarding a difference in position and posture between the robot and the common marker at the connection node serving as a connection destination (connection information includes a connection node (e.g., wall) and a marker (e.g., door) wherein a positional relationship exists between the connection node and the marker, wherein the marker and connection node ca be a difference of position away from each other and the vehicle, Yuki, Paragraphs 0152-0156 and Figures 4 and 5) . Regarding Claim 7 , Yuki describes the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the self-position identification unit detects, as the stable section, a section in which a change in posture of the traveling robot in a pitch direction satisfies an allowable reference (vehicle determining a section in which the robot is traveling on an allowable slope, Yuki, Paragraphs 0149, 0170-0174, and 0189) . Regarding Claim 8 , Yuki describes the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the self-position identification unit detects, as a posture sudden change section, a section in which a change in posture exceeds the allowable reference, generates a divided map of the stable section immediately before the posture sudden change section on a basis of the sensor information up to a node immediately before the posture sudden change section, and generates a divided map of the stable section immediately after the posture sudden change section on a basis of sensor information from a node immediately after the posture sudden change section (determining a posture change (e.g., slope or position) of the robot and determining if a divide of a map is appropriate, Yuki, Paragraphs 0152-0154, 0170-0174, and 0189 and Figure 4) . Regarding Claim 9 , Yuki describes the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the self-position identification unit generates the divided map by sequentially generating a peripheral map on a basis of the sensor information obtained in the stable section and adjusting and integrating a plurality of sequentially generated peripheral maps so as not to cause inconsistency (able to generate a divided map (i.e., room A and room B) and adjusting the map as needed for accuracy, Yuki, Paragraphs 0152-0154) . Regarding Claim 10 , Yuki describes the information processing device according to claim 9, comprising: an action planning unit that selects a plurality of divided maps existing on a movement route to a destination and plans the movement route in the divided map for each of the selected divided maps (determining route for the vehicle, based in part on maps and divided maps, Yuki, Paragraphs 0066, 0098-0100, and 0152-0156) . Regarding Claim 11 , Yuki describes the information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the action planning unit plans the movement route between the divided maps on a basis of the connection information (determining route for the vehicle, based in part on maps and divided maps and connection information (e.g., door), Yuki, Paragraphs 0066, 0098-0100, and 0152-0156) . Regarding Claim 12 , the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim. Regarding Claim 13 , the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki U.S. P.G. Publication 2024/0069564A1 (hereinafter, Yuki), in view of Suzuki et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2020/0363212A1 (hereinafter, Suzuki) . Regarding Claim 3 , Yuki describes the information processing device according to claim 2. Yuki does not specifically disclose the device to include that the difference information is generated on a basis of odometry information between connection nodes . Suzuki discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Suzuki describes the ability to determine the difference in position information based on odometry information (i.e., encoder attached to the driving wheel) to determine information between locations (i.e., connection nodes) (Suzuki, Paragraphs 0085-0086) . As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Yuki to include the difference information is generated on a basis of odometry information between connection nodes, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Suzuki. It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the distance between locations based on odometry information allows for more accurate positioning of the vehicle (Suzuki, Paragraphs 0085-0086) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter and would be allowable if rewritten in the independent form and overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.. 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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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. /ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 2 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 3 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 4 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 5 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 6 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 7 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 8 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 9 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 10 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 11 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 12 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 13 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 14 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/107,638 Page 15 Art Unit: 3667
Prosecution Insights