DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-8 and 11-21 would be allowable if (#1) rewritten to overcome all pending objection(s) and all pending rejection(s) set forth in this Office action; and (#2) rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Priority Status
Foreign priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Preliminary Amended Claim(s) 1-21 is/are examined in this office 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 .
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.
Amendment to The Specification
The Amendments to the Specification are acknowledged.
Judicial Exception 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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. (See MPEP § 2106.)
STEP 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes for Claim(s) 1-21.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, because Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“acquiring a map image …” – (In this step, said act of “acquiring” is interpreted as “collecting” and said “map image” is interpreted as “information” thus the limitation is considered “collecting information”. This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III Mental Process.); and
“identifying from the map image a target region having a preset feature” – (In this step, said act of “identifying” is interpreted as “analyzing” and said “map image” is interpreted as “information” thus the limitation is considered “analyzing information”. This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III Mental Process.)
Yes for Claim(s) 9-10 because they repeat the subject matter of Claim 1 and therefore analyzed in like manner.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, because Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“performing map optimization processing on the target region” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.)
No for Claim(s) 9-10 because they repeat the subject matter of Claim 1 and therefore analyzed in like manner.
The above limitations are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer functions of collecting and/or processing data. These generic limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., “a processor” from Claim 10; “a memory” from Claim 10; and “a non-transitory computer storage medium” from Claim 9). Accordingly, 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. As a result, Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are directed to the abstract idea.
Additionally, The Examiner refers to The Berkheimer Memorandum1 for submitting more evidence into the prosecution regarding what subject matter is/are well known in the technology. The Berkheimer Memorandum specifies The Examiner shall show one or more of the follow items:
“A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (1).
“A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (2).
“A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (3).
“A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (4).
In this particular case, The Examiner provides “A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)” as required by Section III:
“It is well known in the art to provide a vehicle display screen located within the vehicle.” (US 20130224721 A1)
“Client-Server and network communication is well-known in the art of computers and networking.” (US 20050021745 A1, [0052])
“The electronic control unit 23 comprises a microprocessor including a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an A/D converter, and an input/output interface, all not shown, but well-known in the art.” (US 4741163)
“As is well-known in the art, software is stored on a computer-readable storage medium (including compact disc, computer diskette, and computer memory, etc.) with code, or instructions, which, when read and executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a process or task.” (US 20120226548 A1, [0020])
“Conventionally, an in-vehicle microphone device mounted on a vehicle interior, for example, a vehicle interior ceiling, is widely known.” (JP 2016105557 A)
STEP 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No for Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are ineligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-8 and 11-21 are also ineligible because they do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(B) or (pre-AIA ) Second Paragraph
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 14-21 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 10 recite(s) two distinct embodiments (i.e., “An electronic device” in The Preamble; and “… map processing method …” in lines 4 and 6) and therefore indefinite. In accordance with MPEP § 2173.05(p) II states “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” In other words, a single claim must be drawn to either a product or process (but not both) and because a potential competitor of Applicant would not know whether possession alone of the claimed structure constituted infringement, or alternatively, if infringement required the execution of the recited method steps; therefore, the claim(s) is/are indefinite.
Claims 14-21 are rejected based on dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113741481 A (“D1”).
Claims 1 and 9 repeat the same subject matter as Claim 10 and rejected in like manner.
As to Claim 10, D1 discloses An electronic device (e.g., “robot”; see at least Abstract – “The embodiment of the invention claims a map processing method, device, storage medium and robot”; Technical Field section – “The invention relates to the technical field of map processing” and “The robot of the technical solution of the invention can be (but not limited to) is a sweeping robot, mopping robot or sweeping integrated robot automatic cleaning device”), comprising:
a processor (“the invention further claims a robot, comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored on the memory and capable of running on the processor, the processor executes the program to realize the steps of the method” and “the processor may be a central processing unit (Central Processing Unit, CPU), or other general processor, a digital signal processor (Digital Signal Processor, DSP); Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC); A programmable gate array (Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA)) or other programmable logic device”); and
a memory configured to store executable instructions of the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute a map processing method by executing the executable instructions, the method comprises (“the invention further claims a robot, comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored on the memory and capable of running on the processor, the processor executes the program to realize the steps of the method” and “the memory may include a high speed random access memory, and may also include a non-volatile memory, such as a hard disk, memory; Plug-in hard disk, smart card (Smart Media Card, SMC) safety digital (Secure Digital, SD) card, flash memory card (FlashCard), at least one disk memory device, flash memory device, or other volatile solid state memory device”):
acquiring a map image (e.g., “laser radar scanning data”), the map image representing an accessible region (e.g., “cleaning map”) of a movable object (e.g., “path of the sweeping robot”) (“the user after using the automatic cleaning robot to finish a ground cleaning, can be seen on the mobile device according to the data generated by the laser radar scanning data generated by the cleaning map; The cleaning map displays the path of the sweeping robot in the cleaning ground process and the room pattern of the arriving region” and “The robot will generate a cleaning map after finishing each cleaning work. Generally, cleaning the pixel point in the map can be divided into obstacle pixel point (i.e., BLOCK point, corresponding to the LDS in the actual space can be scanned with possible barrier to the travel route of each obstacle, such as wall, fixed object and so on)”);
identifying from the map image a target region having a preset feature (“searching the obstacle pixel point in the cleaning map” and “determining the linear distribution area corresponding to the linear obstacle in the cleaning map; marking all pixel points in the target pixel column and the target pixel row in the linear distribution area as obstacle pixel point; the target pixel column and target pixel behaviour linear distribution area has the pixel column or pixel row with the most obstacle pixel point number”); and
performing map optimization processing on the target region (“wherein the searching for the cleaning map in the preset slope distribution rule of the obstacle pixel area, comprising: taking each obstacle pixel point as the initial pixel point; using different search unit to respectively obstacle pixel point search to the preset search direction; calculating the hit rate of the current obstacle pixel point according to the number of the obstacle pixel points existing in the search unit and the number of the pixel points corresponding to the search unit; searching the obstacle pixel point respectively the pixel points above and below the current obstacle pixel point by the searching unit; calculating the error rate of the current obstacle pixel point according to the number of the obstacle pixel points found above and below the current obstacle pixel point and the number of the pixel points corresponding to the search unit; when the hit rate and the error rate satisfy each corresponding preset threshold value, circularly searching other pixel points in the cleaning map according to the current search direction, to detect the pixel point in the current search direction according to the current search unit; until the hit rate or the error rate of the detected obstacle pixel point does not satisfy the corresponding preset threshold value; judging whether the search cycle times of the search process is greater than the current search unit corresponding to the cycle threshold value, if the search cycle times is greater than the current search unit corresponding to the cycle threshold value, then the search process in the searched pixel point is the obstacle pixel point”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US 20190018420 A1 discloses techniques for a robotic cleaning device to determine a plan to clean an environment based on types of surfaces in the environment. The plan can include a route to take in the environment and/or one or more configurations to apply to the robotic cleaning device during the route. Determining the plan can include inserting detected surface types into an environmental map of the environment. The environmental map can then be used on future routes such that the robotic cleaning device can know a surface type of a surface before the robotic cleaning device reaches the surface. In some examples, a type of a surface of the environment can be detected by the robotic cleaning device based on optical polarization of light.
US 20180149753 A1 discloses a LIDAR apparatus based on a time of flight and a moving object which output an electrical signal by transmitting and receiving light, generate a control signal by analyzing the electrical signal, measure a pin point distance by calculating a time of flight of the light based on the control signal, and process point cloud data generated based on a measured distance to accurately construct information on a surrounding environment.
US 20190120633 A1 discloses a process that includes: obtaining a first version of a map of a workspace; selecting a first undiscovered area of the workspace; in response to selecting the first undiscovered area, causing the robot to move to a position and orientation to sense data in at least part of the first undiscovered area; and obtaining an updated version of the map mapping a larger area of the workspace than the first version.
US 20220206510 A1 discloses a method for generating a map for a robot, the method comprising the steps of: acquiring a raw map associated with a task of the robot; identifying pixels estimated to be a moving obstacle in the raw map, on the basis of at least one of colors of pixels specified in the raw map and sizes of areas associated with the pixels; and performing dilation and erosion operations on the pixels estimated to be the moving obstacle, and determining a polygon-based contour of the moving obstacle.
US 20220282977 A1 discloses a map noise reduction apparatus and method of a robot according to the exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure reduce a noise such as an outer noise and an inner nose which may be caused due to a sensor characteristic and an environmental factor while generating a grid map and simplify a contour of the grid map to provide a neater and clear grid map.
Written Authorization Required for Internet Communication
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. The written authorization may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is best reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0700-1700 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, ERIN PIATESKI, is available at telephone number (571) 270-7429.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV
1 See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF
Prosecution Insights