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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 of US application 19/117,650 were filed on 4/2/25.
The same day, applicant filed a preliminary amendment. Claims 1-6 and 9-10 were amended. Claims 11-20 were newly added. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 6, 11, 14, 16, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2, 11, and 16, “to obtain a coordinate of each point along the outer boundary,” should be “to obtain a coordinate of each of a plurality of points along [[the]] an outer boundary,”
In claim 4, “recognizing inflection points from the two adjacent coordinate points,” should be “recognizing the inflection points from the two adjacent coordinate points,”
In claim 6, 14, and 19, “wherein a connection line of the two visible concave points is entirely inside the map.” should be “wherein a connection line of [[the]] two visible concave points is entirely inside the map.”
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, 3-10, 12-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of gathering map boundary data, identifying concave point pairs in that data, identifying connecting lines for those point pairs which do not overlap, and using these lines to map segmentations for the map area. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, applicant recites, mutatis mutandis, A self-propelled device comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program capable of running on the processor, wherein when executing the computer program, the processor is configured to implement a map area division method comprising:
obtaining an outer boundary map of an operation area of the self-propelled device;
obtaining concave points in the outer boundary map; and
determining concave-point pairs according to visibility of the concave points, and performing an optimal segmentation of the operation area according to a relationship between connection lines of the concave-point pairs;
wherein the connection lines of the concave-point pairs for the optimal segmentation do not intersect with each other.
Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore is directed to a process. Claim 9 and claim 10 recite a device and a non-volatile storage medium, respectively, which are both apparatuses. All three claims therefore satisfy step 1 of the Section 101 analysis. Under the two-prong inquiry, each claim is eligible at revised step 2A unless: Prong One: the claim recites a judicial exception; and Prong Two: the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception.
The above claim steps are directed to the concept of gathering map boundary data, identifying concave point pairs in that data, identifying connecting lines for those point pairs which do not overlap, and using these lines to map segmentations for the map area, which is an abstract idea that can be performed by a user mentally or manually and falls within the Mental Processes grouping. (Prong one: YES, recites an abstract idea).
Other than reciting the use of a processor in claims 9-10 and a non-volatile computer-readable medium in claim 10, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed entirely by a human. The use of one or more computing devices is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Prong Two: NO, does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application similar to that shown in MPEP 2106.05).
Under step 2B, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept. The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The processor and a non-volatile computer-readable medium are described in paragraphs [0079]-[0080] of applicant’s specification as merely general purpose computer components. Therefore these additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The recitation of generic processors/computers does not take the above limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Moreover, the implementation of the abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claims merely invoke the additional elements as tools that are being used in their ordinary capacity. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not add significantly more. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Examiner’s note to help applicant overcome the 101 rejections: applicant can overcome the 101 rejections by amending the independent claims to include the limitations of claims 2, 11, or 16, since these control the position of a self-propelled device, which is not something that can be performed mentally or manually.
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 17, applicant recites The map area division method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the obtaining the concave points in the outer boundary map comprises: recognizing inflection points in the outer boundary map, and obtaining feature points from the recognized inflection points; and recognizing the concave points from the obtained feature points.
However, a human could perform the above evaluations mentally or manually.
Regarding claim 4, applicant recites The map area division method as claimed in claim 3, further comprising: comparing adjacent coordinate points in the outer boundary map; and recognizing inflection points from the two adjacent coordinate points, when the two adjacent coordinate points are in the same row but with different column coordinates, or in the same column but with different row coordinates.
However, a human could perform the above evaluations mentally or manually.
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 18, applicant recites The map area division method as claimed in claim 3, further comprising: obtaining a feature point serves as a concave point, when an included angle of the feature point is greater than 180 degrees, wherein the included angle is inside the map and is formed by outer boundary lines on both sides of the feature point.
However, a human could perform the above steps mentally or manually.
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 19, applicant recites The map area division method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: matching the visible concave points two by two to obtain visible concave-point pairs; wherein a connection line of the two visible concave points is entirely inside the map.
However, a human could perform the above steps mentally or manually.
Regarding claim 7, applicant recites The map area division method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: performing a single-point segmentation on the concave points when the optimal segmentation is unable to be performed.
However, a human could perform the above steps mentally or manually.
Regarding claims 8, 15, and 20, applicant recites The map area division method as claimed in claim 7, wherein a single-point segmentation line for performing the single-point segmentation does not intersect with an optimal segmentation line for performing the optimal segmentation.
However, a human could perform the above evaluations mentally or manually to conceptualize the above division of the region.
Examiner’s note to help applicant overcome the 101 rejections: applicant can overcome the 101 rejections by amending the independent claims to include the limitations of claims 2, 11, or 16, since these control the position of a self-propelled device, which is not something that can be performed mentally or manually.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to resolve the rejections and objections indicated in prior sections of this office action.
The closest prior art of record is Wu et al. (CN114690753A) in view of Kou et al. (CN115063508A), hereinafter referred to as Wu and Kou, respectively. Where appropriate, the attached English translations may be used to ascertain page numbers for citations. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, applicant recites A map area division method applied to a self-propelled device, characterized by comprising:
obtaining an outer boundary map of an operation area of the self-propelled device (Wu discloses 1021、Obtain the boundary grid that is located at the outermost periphery in the grid map and whose cost value is a set value; 1022、Based on the boundary grid, determine the closed boundary [See at least Wu, Page 5]);
obtaining concave points in the outer boundary map (Wu discloses Obtaining a plurality of vertices of the closed boundary; distinguishing convex points and concave points among the plurality of vertices [See at least Wu, Page 5]); and
determining concave-point pairs (Wu discloses distinguishing convex points and concave points among the plurality of vertices [See at least Wu, Page 5]) according to visibility of the concave points (Wu discloses that During specific implementation, the execution subject of the method in this embodiment can use its own sensor components, such as image acquisition sensors, lidars, distance sensors, etc., to collect environmental information; use its own positioning device to locate its own position and attitude; then use its own positioning device [See at least Wu, Page 4]. Wu further discloses that The SLAM (simultaneous localization and mapping) technology constructs a map to obtain the map information [See at least Wu, Page 4]), and performing an optimal segmentation of the operation area (Wu discloses executing the step "Convex polygon decomposition of the closed boundary" [See at least Wu, Page 5]).
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests performing the optimal segmentation of the operation area according to a relationship between connection lines of the concave-point pairs;
wherein the connection lines of the concave-point pairs for the optimal segmentation do not intersect with each other. (emphasis added).
Wu comes close to teaching this, since Wu does teach connecting lines between concave point pairs (Wu discloses S11, acquiring the first concave point in the plurality of vertices; S12, searching from the first concave point along a direction for a second concave point located downstream of the first concave point and not adjacent to the first concave point among the plurality of vertices; S13, when there is the second concave point, connecting the first concave point and the second concave point to form a dividing line [See at least Wu, Page 5]). However, there is not discussion of avoiding intersection between the lines connecting these concave point-pairs. On the contrary, the dividing lines of Wu do intersect but, in each division, each of the lines have at least one point in common with another line (See at least Wu, Figs. 1-2). Therefore, Wu cannot read on the limitation, “wherein the connection lines of the concave-point pairs for the optimal segmentation do not intersect with each other.” (emphasis added).
Kou also comes close to teaching the above missing limitation but also ultimately falls short. Wu discloses segmentations of regions by connecting concave point pairs with lines (See at least Kou, Fig. 4. See also Kou, Fig. 7, top center image). However, some of these lines intersect (See at least Kou, Fig. 4) whereas others of them do not (See at least Kou, Fig. 7, top center image). There is therefore no concrete rule in Kou that the connections lines corresponding to any two point pairs not intersect with each other. In fact, there does not appear to be any particular relationship between any lines between concave point pairs for any segmentations in Kou that is used to actually perform the segmentation. Accordingly, the segmentation of Kou cannot be said to be “according to a relationship between connection lines of the concave-point pairs” because no such relationship between these lines is ever discussed in Kou except with respect to Fig. 4, where the lines clearly intersect, thus failing the “do not intersect” requirement of the claimed invention (See at least Fig. 4 in Kou: Kou teaches that the connecting lines of the concave points of the polygon to be divided and any intersection of the polygon to be divided are used as multiple pre-slicing lines [See at least Kou, Page 4]. But it is clear from Fig. 4 that these lines actually intersect each other, which departs from the claimed invention). Accordingly, Kou cannot read on the above missing claim limitations either.
None of the other prior art of record resolve these deficiencies in Kou and Wu.
For at least the above stated reasons, claims 1 and 9-10 contain allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-8, 11-15, and 16-20, these groups of claims also contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence from claims 1, 9, and 10, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571) 272-1516. 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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
