www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/378,427
`
`07/16/2021
`
`Renji Honda
`
`083710-3353
`
`4087
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`YASHARPOUR,EMILY HANNAH
`
`1714
`
`01/19/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-6 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 07/16/2021 is/are: a)[¥) accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)¥) All
`1.4) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 07/16/2021.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20221231
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/378 ,427
`Hondaetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`EMILY H YASHARPOUR
`1714
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 07/16/2021.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`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-AlA 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 languagein 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-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,is invoked.
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection |, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong
`
`test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 3
`
`(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 anotherlinking
`
`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-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AlA 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-AlA 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-AlA 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-AlA 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 nonethelessbeing interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlIA 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 4
`
`preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: (1) “an object information acquisition
`
`unit that acquires object information based onasensor included in the vacuum cleaner”in claims 1
`
`and 6,(2) “a danger determination unit that determines danger of the object based on the acquired
`
`object information”in claims 1, 2, 4, and 6, (3) “ a map acquisition unit that acquires a map of an area
`
`where the vacuum cleaner runs”in claims 1 and 6,(4) “a dangerous position display unit that causes
`
`the display unit to display the danger of the object determined by the danger determination unit and
`
`the acquired position of the object on the map in association with each other”in claims 1, 5, and 6,(5)
`
`“a danger managementunit that acquires danger managementinformation in which a type of the
`
`danger and a danger degreethatis a degree of the danger are associated with the object information,
`
`wherein the danger determination unit determines the danger of the object based on the acquired
`
`danger managementinformation”in claim 4.
`
`Becausethis/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA
`
`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.
`
`If applicant does not intend to havethis/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
`
`pre-AlA 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-AlA 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`Regarding “an object information acquisition unit that acquires object information based ona
`
`sensor included in the vacuum cleaner”in claims 1 and 6, applicant appears to have met the limitations
`
`set forth in MPEP § 2181, and examiner has turned to the specification for clarification. In the
`
`specification, applicant discloses that the “terminal device 120 includes
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 5
`
`object information acquisition unit ... as processing units implemented by executing programs ina
`
`processor (notillustrated) included in terminal controller 129.” (See Specification, Page 10, Lines 4-8)
`
`and that the “Object information acquisition unit 121 acquires, from object detector 107 of vacuum
`
`cleaner 110, object information that is information on an object present around vacuum cleaner 110.
`
`Object information acquisition unit 121 may directly acquire object information from vacuum cleaner
`
`110 or may acquire object information via a network” (See specification, Page 11, Lines 1-5) as
`
`comprising a dedicated software for interpreting information received by the vacuum cleaner.
`
`Equivalent structures may include those that perform the function specified in the claim, structures that
`
`are not excluded by any specific definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, or is a
`
`structural equivalent of the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. See MPEP 2183.
`
`Regarding “a danger determination unit that determines danger of the object based on the
`
`acquired object information”in claim 1, 2, 4, and 6, applicant appears to have metthe limitations set
`
`forth in MPEP § 2181, and examiner has turned to the specification for clarification. In the specification,
`
`in one example, applicant discloses the “terminal device 120 includes danger determination unit... as
`
`processing units implemented by executing programs in a processor (notillustrated) included in
`
`terminal controller 129” (See Specification, Page 10, Lines 4-8) and that the “danger determination unit
`
`122 calculates the angle of the straight line calculated by object detector 107 with respect to the wall
`
`surface on the map, and comparesthe angle with a predetermined threshold value.If the angle is less
`
`than or equal to the threshold value, danger determination unit 122 determines that the object has a
`
`sharp convex shape and is dangerous.” (See specification, Page 19, Lines 16-20) as comprising a
`
`dedicated software for interpreting information received by the vacuum cleaner. Equivalent structures
`
`may include those that perform the function specified in the claim, structures that are not excluded by
`
`any specific definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, or is a structural equivalent of the
`
`corresponding elementdisclosed in the specification. See MPEP 2183.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding “a map acquisition unit that acquires a map of an area where the vacuum cleaner
`
`runs” in claim 1 and 6, applicant appears to have met the limitations set forth in MPEP § 2181, and
`
`examiner has turned to the specification for clarification. In the specification, in one example, applicant
`
`discloses “terminal device 120 includes map acquisition unit ... as processing units implemented by
`
`executing programs in a processor (notillustrated) included in terminal controller 129” (See
`
`Specification, Page 10, Lines 4-8) and that “map acquisition unit 123 may acquire a map (illustrated in
`
`FIG. 2) created by creation recognition unit 103 of vacuum cleaner 110 using SLAM or the like by
`
`communication. In this case, the position of the object that is part of the object information may be
`
`indicated in the map. Further, map acquisition unit 123 may acquire a floor map of a floor including a
`
`cleaning target area of vacuum cleaner 110as illustrated in FIG. 5 as a map from server 130 viaa
`
`network. In addition, map acquisition unit 123 may acquire the map created by a map creation unit (not
`
`illustrated) included in terminal device 120.” (See Specification, Page 12, Lines 12-21). The structure of
`
`the map acquisition unit comprises a dedicated piece of software for interpreting information received
`
`by the vacuum cleaner. Equivalent structures may include those that perform the function specified in
`
`the claim, structures that are not excluded by anyspecific definition provided in the specification for an
`
`equivalent, or is a structural equivalent of the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. See
`
`MPEP 2183.
`
`Regarding “a dangerous position display unit that causes the display unit to display the danger
`
`of the object determined by the danger determination unit and the acquired position of the object on
`
`the map in association with each other” in claims 1, 5, and 6, applicant appears to have met the
`
`limitations set forth in MPEP § 2181, and examiner has turned to the specification for clarification. In the
`
`specification, applicant discloses “terminal device 120 includes... dangerous position display unit ... as
`
`processing units implemented by executing programs in a processor (notillustrated) included in
`
`terminal controller 129” (See Specification, Page 10, Lines 4-8) and that “dangerous position display unit
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 7
`
`124 mayindicate danger information suitable for a target person on a danger information map using an
`
`icon, an illustration, a text, or the like on the basis of the danger management information obtained
`
`from danger management unit 125 and causedisplay unit 161 to display the resultant information” (See
`
`specification, Page 13, Lines 7-11). The dangerous position display unit comprises a dedicated piece of
`
`softwarefor associating an icon with an obstacle. Equivalent structures may include those that perform
`
`the function specified in the claim, structures that are not excluded by any specific definition provided in
`
`the specification for an equivalent, or is a structural equivalent of the corresponding elementdisclosed
`
`in the specification. See MPEP 2183.
`
`Regarding “a danger managementunit that acquires danger managementinformation in which
`
`a type of the danger and a danger degreethat is a degree of the danger are associated with the object
`
`information, wherein the danger determination unit determines the danger of the object based on the
`
`acquired danger management information”in claim 4, applicant appears to have met the limitations set
`
`forth in MPEP § 2181, and examiner has turned to the specification for clarification. In the specification,
`
`applicant discloses “terminal device 120 includes ... danger managementunit... as processing units
`
`implemented by executing programs in a processor (notillustrated) included in terminal controller 129”
`
`(See Specification, Page 10, Lines 4-8) and that the “danger management unit 125 acquires
`
`danger management information in which the type of danger of a detected object, a danger degree
`
`indicating the degree of danger, and object information are associated with each other” (See
`
`specification, Page 11, Lines 6-9). The danger managementunit comprises a dedicated piece of software
`
`keeping track of the features of the obstacle and how “dangerous” it may be. Equivalent structures may
`
`include those that perform the function specified in the claim, structures that are not excluded by any
`
`specific definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, or is a structural equivalent of the
`
`corresponding elementdisclosed in the specification. See MPEP 2183.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Page 8
`
`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 requirementsofthis title.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
`
`to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “an object information acquisition unit
`
`that acquires object information based on a sensor included in the vacuum cleaner ... a danger
`
`determination unit that determines danger of the object based on the acquired object information; a
`
`map acquisition unit that acquires a map of an area where the vacuum cleaner runs; and a dangerous
`
`position display unit that causes the display unit to display the danger of the object determined by the
`
`danger determination unit and the acquired position of the object on the map in association with each
`
`other”. Specifically, the steps describe a process for detecting and recording information about an
`
`obstacle and displaying it ina manner to convey which obstacles are more “dangerous”.
`
`The limitations of acquiring object information and assessing it to determine whether an object
`
`is “dangerous” and compiling information to create a map, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of an “an object information
`
`acquisition unit”, “danger determination unit”, a “map acquisition unit”, and a “a dangerous position
`
`display unit” comprising instructions for executing the limitations. That is, other than reciting that a “an
`
`object information acquisition unit”, “danger determination unit”, a “map acquisition unit”, and a
`
`“dangerous position display unit” that comprises such executable instructions, nothing in the claim
`
`element precludes the limitations from being practically performed in the mind. For example,
`
`“acquir[ing] object information based on a sensor”is a step that can be performedin the mind, but for
`
`the limitation specifying the presence of a “an object information acquisition unit” in which instructions
`
`for the step are stored. Similarly, the step of “determin[ing] danger of the object based on the acquired
`
`object information” is a step that can be performedin the mind, but for the limitation specifying the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 9
`
`presenceof a “danger determination unit” in which instructions for the step are stored. The step of
`
`“acquir[ing] a map of an area where the vacuum cleaner runs”is a step that can be performedin the
`
`mind, but for the limitation specifying the presence of a “map acquisition unit” in which instructions for
`
`the step are stored. The step of “caus[ing] the display unit to display the danger of the object
`
`determined by the danger determination unit and the acquired position of the object on the map in
`
`association with each other”is a step that recites the function of a generic computer component. While
`
`the claims recite hardware elements, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as being “significantly
`
`more”than the abstract idea. The “terminal” that the “object information acquisition unit”, “danger
`
`determination unit”, a “map acquisition unit”, and a “a dangerous position display unit” are storedin is
`
`understood to be merely conventional computer component, commonly knownin industry. (See
`
`Specification, Page 10, Lines 4-8)
`
`If aclaim 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.
`
`This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Federal Register,
`
`Vol. 84, page 55 details that the considerations for a “practical application” are: The claim fails to recite
`
`any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the
`
`computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular
`
`article to a different state or thing, and/or 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. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim does not improve any technology, or have a
`
`technological improvement. Moreover, limitations that are “not” indicative of integration into a
`
`practical application include adding the words “apply it’, or mere instructions to implementan abstract
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 10
`
`idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do notintegrate the
`
`abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing
`
`the abstract idea, and thereis still no improvement to a technology or using the judicial in some
`
`“meaning way beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
`
`environment.” The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
`
`The claim does notinclude additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
`
`more than the judicial exception. The claims recite “a dangerous position display unit that causes the
`
`display unit to display the danger of the object determined by the danger determination unit and the
`
`acquired position of the object on the map in association with each other” which is understood to be a
`
`screen that displays the map information. However, this application is well-known, routine, and
`
`conventional. The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technologyor technical field,
`
`improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a
`
`transformation or reduction ofa particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional
`
`steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond
`
`generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 79 Fed. Reg. 74624.
`
`Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims that transform the exception into a patenteligible
`
`application such that the claim amountsto significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are
`
`rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claim 1 because
`
`claims 3, 5, and 6 merely recite further parameter details of the operation of the “object information
`
`acquisition unit”, “danger determination unit”, and “map acquisition unit”. Claims 3, 5, and 6 do not
`
`include additional elements that are sufficient to amountto significantly more than the judicial
`
`exception. It is well-understood, routine, and conventional that parameter details can be programmed
`
`into a cleaning machine’s “terminal device”.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 11
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract
`
`idea without significantly more. The claim recites “a danger managementunit that acquires danger
`
`management information in which a type of the danger and a danger degreethat is a degree of the
`
`danger are associated with the object information, wherein the danger determination unit determines
`
`the danger of the object based on the acquired danger managementinformation”, essentially a piece of
`
`software that determines and categorizes features of an obstacle that an autonomous vacuum cleaner
`
`encounters.
`
`Thatis, other than reciting “the danger management unit,” nothing in the claim element
`
`precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “danger
`
`determination unit” feature, “acquires” and “determines” in the context of this claim encompasses the
`
`user manually analyzing and keeping track of obstacle information. The “terminal” that the “danger
`
`management unit” is stored in is understood to be merely conventional computer component,
`
`commonly knownin industry. (See Specification, Page 10, Lines 4-8) Under its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the limitation covers performance that may be carried out in the mind but for the
`
`recitation of generic computer components. 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.
`
`This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Federal Register,
`
`Vol. 84, page 55 details that the considerations for a “practical application” are: The claim fails to recite
`
`any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the
`
`computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular
`
`article to a different state or thing, and/or 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 12
`
`technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to
`
`monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim does not improve any technology, or have a
`
`technological improvement. Moreover, limitations that are “not” indicative of integration into a
`
`practical application include adding the words “apply it’, or mere instructions to implementan abstract
`
`idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the
`
`abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing
`
`the abstract idea, and thereis still no improvement to a technology or using the judicial in some
`
`“meaning way beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
`
`environment.” The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
`
`The claim does notinclude additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
`
`more than the judicial exception. The “danger managementunit” only acquires and determines
`
`parameters based on an obstacle which are then used to display information on a screen, according to
`
`the claims. However, this application is well-known, routine, and conventional. The claim fails to recite
`
`any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the
`
`computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular
`
`article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular
`
`useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to
`
`a particular environment. See 79 Fed. Reg. 74624. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims
`
`that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to
`
`significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed
`
`to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`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:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`Page 13
`
`(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 effectivefiling date of the claimed invention.
`
`(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application
`for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
`the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effectivefiling date of
`the claimed invention.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)({1) as being anticipated by
`
`US20190332121A1to Kim etal.
`
`As to claim 1, Kim discloses a vacuum cleaner system including a vacuum cleaner that performs
`
`cleaning while autonomously running and a display unit that displays information acquired from the
`
`vacuum cleaner, (See Kim, Paragraph [0002], [0009], and [0091], Fig. 1, 5, ref. # 1 and 300, which
`
`teaches an autonomous cleaning robot that carries out cleaning based on a map which maybe displayed
`
`ona screen).
`
`the system comprising: an object information acquisition unit that acquires object information
`
`based ona sensor included in the vacuum cleaner, the object information being information on an
`
`object present around the vacuum cleaner; (See Kim, Paragraph [0009], [0059]-[0061], [0071], Fig. 3, ref.
`
`# 11, 100, 140 which teaches an object sensing unit which detects an obstacle from the image acquiring
`
`unit, which possessesa digital camera, analogous to a sensor)
`
`a map acquisition unit that acquires a map of an area where the vacuum cleaner runs; (See Kim,
`
`Paragraph [0009], [0086], [0097]-[0101], Fig. 5, ref. # 200, 220, which teaches that the map generating
`
`unit generates a map of the cleaning area)
`
`Kim further discloses a danger determination unit that determines danger of the object based
`
`on the acquired object information; and a dangerous position display unit that causes the display unit to
`
`display the danger of the object determined by the danger determination unit and the acquired position
`
`of the object on the map in association with each other. Kim discloses that the obstacle recognition unit
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 14
`
`(read as a danger determination unit) determines the shape and height (analogous to danger) of the
`
`obstacle (See Kim, Paragr