DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 and 27 are pending.
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 1-12, 14, 16-19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claims in view of the 2019 PEG is provided below.
Regarding claim 1. An apparatus comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to:
obtain map data characterizing an area;
determine, based on the map data, a plurality of nodes and a plurality of segments connecting the plurality of nodes;
cluster at least a portion of the plurality of segments based on a first distance between each of the plurality of segments;
cluster at least a portion of the plurality of nodes based on a second distance between each of the plurality of nodes;
generate at least one cluster based on the clustered portions of the plurality of segments and the clustered portions of the plurality of nodes; and
generate classification data identifying a classification of the at least one cluster.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites an apparatus. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of determine a plurality of nodes and a plurality of segments. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the limitation that a processor can be configured to perform the task. That is, other than reciting a “processor configured to”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could mentally determine nodes and segments on a provided map to perform said task. Thus, this step recites a mental process.
The claim limitation “cluster” the nodes/segments based on a distance covers a person mentally grouping the nodes/segments based on their proximity. Thus, these steps recite a mental process.
The claim limitation “generate at least one cluster” covers a person mentally combining the groups from the previous step. Thus, this step recites a mental process.
The claim limitation “generate classification data” covers a person judging a common characteristic among the grouped elements. Thus, this step recites a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluation: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of a memory and a processor. The specification does not indicate the computer is anything more than a general-purpose computer programmed to execute the steps laid out in claim 1. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the claimed steps. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes using a generic or general-purpose processor/computer.
The claim limitation of “obtain map data” is also directed to extra-solution activity of gathering data. This step amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount 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.
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.
Per the evaluation in step 2A, general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of an inventive concept (significantly more).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the step of “obtain map data characterizing an area” was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein does not provide any indication that the processor memory are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) 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), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-12, 14, and 16-18, these claims are dependent upon independent claim 1, and provide additional elements (i.e. steps, limitations, etc.) that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, and as such, they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Further, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claims are ineligible. General linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of an inventive concept (significantly more). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus they are ineligible.
Regarding claims 19 and 27, these claims substantially mirror claim 1 and recite corresponding mental processes without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, these claims are ineligible.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high-definition” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-definition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what maps would be considered high-definition, nor what level of detail would be required for a map to be considered high-definition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 and 27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the available prior art fails to teach or suggest clustering both nodes, based on a distance between the nodes, and segments, based on a distance between the segments, in combination with the further limitations of the independent claims.
Zhang (US Publication No. 2023/0051155) teaches, at Fig. 3C and paragraphs [0090-0091], clustering linear feature points 319a (corresponding to the claimed nodes) and linear feature detection data 319 (corresponding to the claimed segments) based on their distance to sub link 307a. Zhang does not utilize a first distance between each of the plurality of segments or a second distance between each of the plurality of nodes as required by the independent claims.
Kim et al. (US Publication No. 2024/0377205) teaches, at paragraphs [0088-0089, and 0105], nodes with the same road feature information and located within a certain distance are combined as a node group. Nodes may be inserted into a section link where no other nodes exist. Kim does not teach using the distance between segments to cluster segments without turning them into nodes first.
Kaste et al. (US Publication No. 2024/0140481) teaches, at paragraphs [0017-0018], for deciding between using autonomous or manual control of a vehicle, assigning sections of a route to clusters by assigning each point on the route to the cluster it is closest to. Kaste fails to teach using a distance between nodes or a distance between segments, rather than the distance from the points to the cluster.
Jones (US Publication 2025/0003767) teaches, at table 2, grouping lane parts into bounding boxes, wherein the lane parts include nodes and edges of a directed graph repesenting a roadway.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
