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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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.
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: “sampling unit”, “node creation unit”, and “path setting unit” in claims 1-6.
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. Corresponding structure for the above-noted limitations is provided on page 12, lines 12-30 of the specification filed 6/16/2025.
If 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 § 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 6 and 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “the parent node” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “A computer program recorded on a computer-readable recording medium to execute the sampling-based path planning methods using midpoint interpolation according to claim 7” (emphasis added). Claim 7 recites “A sampling-based path planning method using midpoint interpolation performed by a sampling-based path planning device”. That is, claim 7 recites only a singular “method” while claim 13 references multiple “methods”. Accordingly, it is unclear what “methods” are referenced in claim 13. Appropriate clarification is required.
For the purpose of further examination on the merits, Examiner will treat the “methods” in claim 13 to read as “method”.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to “[a] computer program recorded on a computer-readable recording medium”. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is directed to the computer program itself. Software per se does not fall in one of the four categories of statutory subject matter (see MPEP 2106.03(I)).
Alternatively, if the claim is interpreted as being directed to the “computer-readable recording medium”, under a broadest reasonable interpretation this would cover transitory forms of signal transmission, just as a propagating signal, which are not directed to one of the four categories of statutory subject matter (see MPEP 2106.03(I)).
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, in part, “creating a new node on the basis of the input coordinates” and “setting a shortest path by planning a path from a starting point to a destination point using the created node, determined whether the starting point and the destination point of the planned path are connected, and detecting a determined new path.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally, given a set of input coordinates, create a node as a point in space. The human being can then set a path from a starting point to a destination using that point. Mental processes that can be performed in the human mind have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, are not applied by way of a particular machine, do not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not applied in some other meaningful way other than being generically linked to a particular technological environment.
The claim recites an additional element of “sampling and inputting coordinates used as a basis for planning a sampling-based path a random location.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mere act of data gathering. Data gathering for use in an abstract idea has been held as insignificant extra-solution activity and not being significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the sampling unit is configured as a set including at least three nodes used as a basis for planning a sampling-based path.” As noted above in the rejection of claim 1, data gathering for use in an abstract idea has been held as insignificant extra-solution activity and not being significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the use of three nodes does not change the limitations noted above in the rejection of claim 1 from being performable in the human mind.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim rather simply defines the set as being configured of nodes, which does not change the limitations noted above in the rejection of claim 1 from being performable in the human mind.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the node creation unit finds a parent node, i.e., an upper node of the new node, and an ancestor node, i.e., an upper node of the parent node.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the path generation unit plans a path using a midpoint interpolation technique.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally use a midpoint interpolation technique to determine a path between a start point and an end point.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “the path generation unit sets the parent node as a current ancestor node, and generates a new path through midpoint interpolation when an edge of a reference node and the ancestor node overlaps with an obstacle.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally see when a path between two nodes overlaps an obstacle and instead use midpoint interpolation to try a new node.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “creating a 0-th node, i.e., a new node; finding a first node, i.e., a parent node, and a second node, i.e., an ancestor node, using the 0-th node as a child node; determining whether a first edge of the 0-th node and the second node overlaps with an obstacle; and putting the 0-th node and the second node into a shortest path set when the first edge does not overlap with an obstacle.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally, given a set of nodes, select a start node, find a parent and ancestor node of that node, determine if a line edge between the ancestor node and the start node overlaps an obstacle, and set that edge with those two nodes into a shortest path set if it is obstacle-free. Mental processes that can be performed in the human mind have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, are not applied by way of a particular machine, do not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not applied in some other meaningful way other than being generically linked to a particular technological environment.
The claim recites no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “removing the first node from the shortest path set.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “updating the second node as a parent node, and determining whether the second node is a last node and updating the second node.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “determining whether the first edge of the 0-th node and the second node overlaps with an obstacle, and comparing, when the first edge overlaps with an obstacle, a distance from the first node to the edge of the 0-th node and the second node with a threshold value.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “setting a midpoint of the 0-th node and the first node as a first midpoint, and setting, when the distance from the first node to the edge of the 0-th node and the second node is greater than the threshold value, a midpoint of the first node and the second node as a second midpoint.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “determining whether an edge of the first midpoint and the second midpoint overlaps with an obstacle, and comparing, when the edge of the first midpoint and the second midpoint overlaps with an obstacle, a distance from the edge of the first midpoint and the second midpoint to an edge of the first node and the second node with a threshold value.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (“A Method of Enhancing Rapidly-Exploring Random Tree Robot Path Planning Using Midpoint Interpolation”; Applied Sciences, 2021, 11, 8483) [hereinafter “Kang”].
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a sampling-based path planning device using midpoint interpolation (see Table 1 on page 12), the device comprising:
a sampling unit for sampling and inputting coordinates used as a basis for planning a sampling-based path at a random location (see pages 2-3 and Section 2.1);
a node creation unit for creating a new node on the basis of the input coordinates (see pages 2-3 and Section 2.1); and
a path setting unit for setting a shortest path by planning a path from a starting point to a destination point using the created node, determining whether the starting point and the destination point of the planned path are connected, and detecting a determined new path (see pages 2-4).
Regarding claim 2, Kang further discloses the sampling unit is configured as a set including at least three nodes used as a basis for planning a sampling-based path (see Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kang further discloses the set is configured of nodes (see Figures 1 and 3; see also pages 2-3).
Regarding claim 4, Kang further discloses the node creation unit finds a parent node, i.e., an upper node of the new node, and an ancestor node, i.e., an upper node of the parent node (see pages 2-4, specifically qparent and qancestor given qchild).
Regarding claim 5, Kang further discloses the path generation unit plans a path using a midpoint interpolation technique (see Sections 2.2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kang further discloses the path generation unit sets the parent node as a current ancestor node, and generates a new path through midpoint interpolation when an edge of a reference node and the ancestor node overlaps with an obstacle (see Sections 2.2 and 3).
Regarding claim 7, Kang discloses a sampling-based path planning method using midpoint interpolation performed by a sampling-based path planning device, the method comprising the steps of:
creating a 0-th node, i.e., a new node (see pages 2-4; qchild);
finding a first node, i.e., a parent node, and a second node, i.e., an ancestor node, using the 0-th node as a child node (see pages 2-4; qparent and qancestor);
determining whether a first edge of the 0-th node and the second node overlaps with an obstacle (see Section 3); and
putting the 0-th node and the second node into a shortest path set when the first edge does not overlap with an obstacle (see Section 3, specifically page 7).
Regarding claim 8, Kang further discloses the step of removing the first node from the shortest path set (see Section 3, specifically page 7).
Regarding claim 9, Kang further discloses the step of updating the second node as a parent node, and determining whether the second node is a last node and updating the second node (see Section 3, specifically pages 5-7).
Regarding claim 10, Kang further discloses the step of determining whether the first edge of the 0-th node and the second node overlaps with an obstacle, and comparing, when the first edge overlaps with an obstacle, a distance from the first node to the edge of the 0-th node and the second node with a threshold value (see Sections 3 and Figures 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 11, Kang further discloses the step of setting a midpoint of the 0-th node and the first node as a first midpoint, and setting, when the distance from the first node to the edge of the 0-th node and the second node is greater than the threshold value, a midpoint of the first node and the second node as a second midpoint (see Section 3, specifically pages 6-10).
Regarding claim 12, Kang further discloses the step of determining whether an edge of the first midpoint and the second midpoint overlaps with an obstacle, and comparing, when the edge of the first midpoint and the second midpoint overlaps with an obstacle, a distance from the edge of the first midpoint and the second midpoint to an edge of the first node and the second node with a threshold value (see Section 3, specifically pages 6-10).
Regarding claim 13, Kang further discloses a computer program recorded on a computer-readable recording medium (see page 12 and Table 1) to execute the sampling-based path planning methods using midpoint interpolation according to claim 7 (see the rejection of claim 7 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Saunders (US 2020/0118446 A1) generally teaches:
The present disclosure is directed to systems and methods for trajectory and route planning including obstacle detection and avoidance for an aerial vehicle. For example, an aerial vehicle's flight control system may include a trajectory planner that may use short segments calculated using an iterative Dubins path to find a first path between a start point and an end point that does not avoid obstacles. Then the trajectory planner may use a rapidly exploring random tree algorithm that uses points along the first path as seed points to find a trajectory or route between the start point and end point that avoids known or detected obstacles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
