DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 7 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 3 - 7 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, line 4 recites “divide an outer frame of the path and extracts straight line..., but it is recommended the phrase recites “divide an outer frame of the path and extract straight line… Appropriate correction is required.
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: straight line extraction unit configured to divide, region generation unit configured to group, and centerline correction unit is configured to perform in claim 3, centerline correction unit is configured to perform in claim 4, a network data generation apparatus configured to generate and centerline correction apparatus is configured to perform operations in claim 7.
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.
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 3 - 5 and 7 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.
Claims 4 and 5 lack antecedent basis for “the larger region” (Claim 4, line 7; claim 5, line 3).
Suggested language: Amend the phrase in claim 4 to recite “a larger region”.
Claim 4 lacks antecedent basis for “the smaller region” (Claim 4, line 7).
Dependent claim 5 is rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 4.
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “a smaller region”.
For claims 3, 4 and 7: Claim limitations “a straight line extraction unit configured to divide an outer frame shape of the path and extracts straight line portions of the outer frame shape in order of length, a region generation unit configured to group the straight line portions based on respective angles formed by the extracted straight line portions and a reference line and that generates a region per group with a plurality of the straight line portions included in each group, and wherein the centerline correction unit is configured to perform the centerline correction process per region in claim 3, wherein the centerline correction unit is configured to perform the centerline correction process by performing operations including in claim 4, and a network data generation apparatus configured to generate spatial network data which is information about the path based on a centerline corrected by the centerline correction apparatus and wherein the centerline correction apparatus is configured to perform operations in claim 7.” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structures to perform the claimed functions. In particular, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed functions. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the claimed functions can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claim 5 is rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 4.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 - 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions in the limitations. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claim 5 is rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haunert et al. (“Area Collapse and Road Centerlines based on Straight Skeleton”), hereinafter “Haunert”, and further in view of Poullis et al. (“Delineation and Geometric Modeling of Road Networks”), hereinafter “Poullis”.
As per claim 1, Haunert discloses:
a centerline correction apparatus configured to correct a centerline of a path that is acquired from shape information about an indoor space or road shape information about an outdoor space and that is a travelable region in the indoor space or the outdoor space, the centerline correction apparatus, comprising a centerline correction unit, implemented with one or more computing devices, that is configured to perform operations including (Haunert, page 170, lines 16 - 17 discloses a skeleton algorithm and its computational aspect, along with Table 1 on page 182 with the algorithm indicated as a code, is interpreting that the algorithm is performed on a computing device, page 170, lines 27 - 28 discloses obtaining centerlines of roads, and page 173, lines 16 - 20 discloses reducing centerlines, including a shift in the centerline.)
extracting a center point of an individual side of the centerline (Haunert, page 170, lines 36 - 39 discloses points defining a centerline regarding a polygon boundary, and page 175, line 26 adds deriving road centerlines for a model representing roads.)
The derivation of road centerlines, with the centerlines including points, are interpreted as a middle point of the centerline is part of the points derived in the road centerline derivations.
moving the centerline to be at a center with respect to a distance to a boundary of an original shape based on the extracted center point (Haunert, page 175, lines 30 - 32 discloses shifting a centerline regarding polygon edges.)
Haunert does not expressly disclose:
deleting an unnecessary one of the moved centerlines
Poullis however discloses:
deleting an unnecessary one of the moved centerlines (Poullis, page 11, left column, lines 6 - 11 discloses a deletion of a centerline after two other centerlines have been merged to form one centerline.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the skeleton algorithm to determine and shift centerline teaching of Haunert with the deletion of a centerline teaching of Poullis. The motivation to do so would have been because Poullis discloses the benefit of the use of LiDAR data improving the road feature segmentation and labeling due to the known elevation of each point and results in better segmented roads compared to using satellite imagery (Poullis, page 16, left column, lines 15 - 19).
As per claim 6, Haunert discloses:
a centerline correction method performed by a centerline correction apparatus which corrects a centerline of a path that is acquired from shape information about an indoor space or road shape information about an outdoor space and that is a travelable region in the indoor space or the outdoor space (Haunert, page 170, lines 16 - 17 discloses a skeleton algorithm and its computational aspect, along with Table 1 on page 182 with the algorithm indicated as a code, is interpreting that the algorithm is performed on a computing device, page 170, lines 27 - 28 discloses obtaining centerlines of roads, and page 173, lines 16 - 20 discloses reducing centerlines, including a shift in the centerline.)
the centerline correction method, comprising extracting a center point of an individual side of the centerline (Haunert, page 170, lines 36 - 39 discloses points defining a centerline regarding a polygon boundary, and page 175, line 26 adds deriving road centerlines for a model representing roads.)
The derivation of road centerlines, with the centerlines including points, are interpreted as a middle point of the centerline is part of the points derived in the road centerline derivations.
moving the centerline to be at a center with respect to a distance to a boundary of an original shape based on the extracted center point (Haunert, page 175, lines 30 - 32 discloses shifting a centerline regarding polygon edges.)
Haunert does not expressly disclose:
deleting an unnecessary one of the moved centerlines.
Poullis however discloses:
deleting an unnecessary one of the moved centerlines (Poullis, page 11, left column, lines 6 - 11 discloses a deletion of a centerline after two other centerlines have been merged to form one centerline.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the skeleton algorithm to determine and shift centerline teaching of Haunert with the deletion of a centerline teaching of Poullis. The motivation to do so would have been because Poullis discloses the benefit of the use of LiDAR data improving the road feature segmentation and labeling due to the known elevation of each point and results in better segmented roads compared to using satellite imagery (Poullis, page 16, left column, lines 15 - 19).
As per claim 7, Haunert discloses:
a network data generation system comprising a centerline correction apparatus and a network data generation apparatus configured to generate spatial network data which is information about the path based on a centerline corrected by the centerline correction apparatus (Haunert, page 170, lines 16 - 17 discloses a skeleton algorithm and its computational aspect, along with Table 1 on page 182 with the algorithm indicated as a code, is interpreting that the algorithm is performed on a computing device, page 170, lines 27 - 28 discloses obtaining centerlines of roads, with page 173, lines 16 - 20 discloses reducing centerlines, including a shift in the centerline, and page 178, lines 40 - 42 adds network analysis regarding roads for car navigation, which includes centerlines from polygons representing roads.)
wherein the centerline correction apparatus is configured to perform operations including extracting a center point of an individual side of the centerline (Haunert, page 170, lines 36 - 39 discloses points defining a centerline regarding a polygon boundary, and page 175, line 26 adds deriving road centerlines for a model representing roads.)
The derivation of road centerlines, with the centerlines including points, are interpreted as a middle point of the centerline is part of the points derived in the road centerline derivations.
moving the centerline to be at a center with respect to a distance to a boundary of an original shape based on the extracted center point (Haunert, page 175, lines 30 - 32 discloses shifting a centerline regarding polygon edges.)
Haunert does not expressly disclose:
deleting an unnecessary one of the moved centerlines.
Poullis however discloses:
deleting an unnecessary one of the moved centerlines (Poullis, page 11, left column, lines 6 - 11 discloses a deletion of a centerline after two other centerlines have been merged to form one centerline.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the skeleton algorithm to determine and shift centerline teaching of Haunert with the deletion of a centerline teaching of Poullis. The motivation to do so would have been because Poullis discloses the benefit of the use of LiDAR data improving the road feature segmentation and labeling due to the known elevation of each point and results in better segmented roads compared to using satellite imagery (Poullis, page 16, left column, lines 15 - 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 - 5 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of Haunert et al. (“Area Collapse and Road Centerlines based on Straight Skeleton”) discloses skeleton algorithm to determine and shift centerline, with Poullis et al. (“Delineation and Geometric Modeling of Road Networks”) discloses removal of a centerline. In addition, Yang et al. (“Road Detection and Centerline Extraction Via Deep Recurrent Convolutional Neural Network U-Net”) discloses s a RCNN unit (recurrent convolution neural network) in extracting a centerline and detecting a road.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Haunert, Poullis, and Yang, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses:
Claim 2, wherein operations to correct a centerline includes using a center point to rotate an individual side of a centerline, and translate the rotated centerline, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Claim 3, wherein the centerline is corrected per region according to an outer frame shape of the path being divided and using an order of length to remove straight line portions of the outer frame shape, and using angles obtained from the removed straight-line portions for each group, along with a reference line, to group the straight-line portions, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
December 8, 2025