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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2025 was filed before the first action on the merits of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding paragraph [0070] the final sentence contains a typographical error of “… the increase in the number of servers in the server’s graph M.g …” from the overall context of the paragraph it appears that it should read “… the increase in the number of edges in the server’s graph M.g …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The first sentence of the abstract is information known from the title and can be implied to an abstract, as such it should be removed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 2-3, 8-14, 16, 24-32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 2 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 2 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 2 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of updating a local map based on a observation (sensor measurement). Then determining if it is taking too long to then requesting a reduced map. This is equivalent to a person attempting to mental (or on pen and paper) update a map for a new observation and then asking for help and receiving an instruction/guidance should it take too long for them to update the map. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding utilizing the received reduced map in any way; currently the reduced map is received and then nothing is done with it.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 2 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. While the claim does recite that the method is for “update a map for simulateous localization and mapping”, there are no limitations in the body of the claim that recite the updating (utilizing the reduced map). While there is an “updating” limitation in the fifth line of the claim; when read in light of the specification and in view of the next “determining” limitation it becomes clear that this first “updating” limitation is attempting to update the map which then fails (takes too long). . While the data is selected and transmitted, it is not transformed by any steps of the method, or used implement a specific improvement for SLAM. Currently nothing is done with the reduced map it is merely received form a server; sending and receiving data is a WURC function of servers.
Also the claim does not constitute an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (of SLAM). Currently the collecting and updating limitations are understood to simply be WURC elements of SLAM; and then the additional limitations “determining”, “sending”, and “receiving” limitations fail to capture the applicant’s asserted improvement (using the reduced local map to provide a new/correct map for SLAM) in that while the reduced map is received there is no function or utilization of this reduced map claimed. As such only the reception of a reduced map does not improve the functioning of SLAM given that the reduced map merely exists as data with no recited use or purpose in the claim.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of sending and transmitting are performed by a “server”, i.e. a computer. The other steps are performed via a “mobile device” (i.e. processor and memory) Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 2 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Selecting and transmitting data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by servers, such as the server in claim 1. The format of a map being a graph of vertices and edges is a WURC format for SLAM maps; as such it is simply appending a WURC activity/element which is known in the field. (Applicant’s own specification admits to such in the background section [0006] in that graph-SLAM is state of the art)
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 2 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 2 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 3, it recites that the determination for a request is based on determining a duration statistic of the most recent and previously determined durations, and if that statistic is greater than a threshold then determining that a reduced map should be requested. This is a mental process that can be reasonably be performed in the human mind; a person can think if their current attempt is taking too long and if previous attempts to a similar or shorter amount of time and then based on that comparison/statistic think that they should request help.
Regarding Claim 8, it is a mobile device (processor and memory) equivalent to method claim 2; it has the same overall 101 analysis; implementing of an abstract idea on a computer (processor and memory) does not integrate the abstract idea onto a specific machine.
Regarding Claim 9, it is a mobile device (processor and memory) equivalent to method claim 3, it has the same overall 101 analysis as the method claim 3.
Regarding Claim 10, it further limits the statistic of claim 9 as being one based on a moving average filter or moving median filter; this is still a mental process which can be performed in the human mind; this is equivalent to a person thinking about only the average or median time of the most recent X amount of updating attempts as opposed all previous attempts when determining if it is taking too long to update the current map.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites merging (i.e. updating) of the reduced map with a intervening (from the time of request) sensor measurement; updating of a SLAM map based on a sensor measurement as the level of generality claimed is a WURC activity of SLAM. Additionally this still fails to capture in the improvement in that claim 11 while merging the reduced map does not recite that the reduced map is being used as the (local to the mobile device) SLAM map.
Regarding Claim 12, it recites that the sensor measurement is based on at least one of inertial measurements; Lidar, 2d images, 3D images, and radar measurements. These are all WURC form a sensors in the field of SLAM as such it is merely generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use as at a high level of generality using conventional (WURC) activities in the field.
Regarding Claim 13, it recites that each vertex (of the SLAM graph) represents a pose or a feature; this is a WURC aspect of SLAM graphs. As such it is merely appending a WURC activity to the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 14, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium equivalent to method claim 2; it has the same overall analysis.
Regarding Claim 16, it is method performed by a server which receives a request for a reduced map; “determines” the reduced map, which is a subset of a global map, and then sends that determined reduced map. Receiving and Sending of data is a WURC activity of servers. At the level of generality claimed “determining” a reduced local map (which is a subset of a larger global map) is a mental process which can be reasonably performed in the human mind. Notably while it is recited that the reduced map is a subset of the global map there are not recited details as to how it is determined which portion(s) of that global map would correspond to requested reduced map. Both the global map and reduced map being a graph of vertices and edges is a WURC aspect of graph SLAM.
Regarding Claim 24, it is a server (device) equivalent to claim 16, implementing of an abstract idea on a computer (server = processor and memory) does not integrate an abstract idea onto a specific machine.
Regarding Claim 25, it recites determining the interval between requests and then determining of the local map based in part on the request-time interval. At the level of generality claimed this is a mental process reasonably performed in the human mind (and/or with pen and paper) wherein the person creates more or less details in the reduced map based on how quickly (interval) of the requests for the reduced map are received/heard.
Regarding Claim 26, this is a mental process which can be performed in the human mind, a person can keep a mental count/estimation of the time between a previously heard request and a current request.
Regarding Claim 27, this is a mental process which can be reasonably be performed in the human mind; a person can copy less details (smaller reduced map) to a map when they are receiving urgent requests (requests with intervals less than a threshold).
Regarding Claim 28, this is a mental process which can be reasonably be performed in the human mind; a person can copy more details (smaller reduced map) to a map compared to a previous copying when they are receiving non-urgent requests (requests with intervals more than a threshold).
Regarding Claim 29, it recites prior to determining the reduced, determining candidate reduced maps and then choosing the sparest amongst them. This is a determination which can be performed in the human mind at the level of generality claimed regarding the determining of candidates and then selecting the sparest; a person can randomly select a couple maps and then choose the sparest (one with least details).
Regarding Claim 30, this is a mental process which can be performed in the human mind. This is equivalent to a person determining if they are too busy to determine multiple (draw multiple) maps.
Regarding Claim 31, vertices of a slam graph map representing a pose or feature is a WURC feature of graph SLAM maps. As such it is it merely appending a WURC activity/feature in the field of SLAM to the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 32, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium equivalent to claim 16, it has the same overall 101 analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 8-14, 16, 24-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps (or elements), such omission amounting to a gap between the steps (or element). See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
Regarding Claims 2 and 8 and their respective dependents; the preamble of these claims recite that the method (claim 2), mobile device (claim 8), and non-transitory (claim 14) are for updating a map for SLAM. However none of these claims clearly recite this updating as such there is a missing step/element of performing this updating. While claims 2, 8, and 14 receive a reduced local map; nothing is done with it. Additionally the “updating” limitation of claims 2, 8, and 14 is understood be an incomplete/failed (taking too long) type updating as such it is unclear how as currently claimed the inventions of claims 2, 8, and 14 update the SLAM map.
Regarding Claims 16, 24, and 32, they and their dependents are a method (server performed), server, and non-transitory inventions for “updating” a local slam map; however none of these claims recite such an updating step/element. As such they appear to be missing a step/element for performing their recited purpose of their preamble (the updating of a SLAM map).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While rejected under U.S.C 101 and U.S.C 112(b), no prior art was found to teach or render obvious the determining of a duration of an update by a mobile device and the requesting and receiving of a reduced map from a server as recited in the independent claims 2, 8, and 14. No prior art was found to teach or render obvious a reduced local map from a server subsequent to a request for such from a mobile device as recited in independent claims 16, 24, and 32.
The closest piece of prior art found US 20140323148 A1, it teaches a SLAM localization system for mobile device which includes sending of a keyframe from a mobile device to receive a position estimation from a server; this varies from the applicant’s claims in that there is no monitoring of updating duration statistics (for determining if a request for a estimate from the server should be sent) for the mobile device; additionally while the server of 148 sends a position estimate (the estimate being based on a global map stored on the server) back to the mobile device, this position estimate is not a reduced local map as required by the applicant’s independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200098258 A1;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
