Response to RCE
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the RCE received 08/05/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/05/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis — Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a process for determining an identifier of a road segment at which a target is location. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis — Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea along with an example of a mental process a person performs for each step of the abstract idea shown in bolded emphasis. Claim 1 recites:
determining an identifier of a first road segment in which a target is located at a first moment (i.e., a person, while driving inside a vehicle, sees a road sign containing the name/identifier of a first road segment the vehicle is traveling on at a first moment in time, in which a rock [i.e., target] is located on the first road segment as well);
constructing a local topology map of the first moment based on map information (i.e., a person constructs a mental map inside their mind at that first moment in time based on the road sign mentioned above as well as an image of a memorized map of a map the user has viewed before), wherein the local topology map of the first moment comprises an identifier of a road segment adjacent to the first road segment (i.e., wherein the mental map, with the help of the memorized map, comprises the name of another road that intersects with the first road segment);
obtaining location information of the target at a second moment (i.e., a person sees the rock is now at a location closer to the moving vehicle at a second point in time), wherein the second moment is after the first moment in a time sequence (i.e., wherein time moves forward from first to second point in time during the mental process the person performs);
determining, based on the map information and the location information of the target at the second moment (i.e., person performs determination based on memorized map and new location of the rock signifying the vehicle’s current position on the first road segment), identifiers of at least two road segments corresponding to the target at the second moment (i.e., person remembers the names of two more intersecting roads that intersect the first road, the rock is on the first road segment of which the two intersecting roads intersect, thus the two intersecting roads corresponds to the rock at the second point in time), wherein the target at the second moment is in a spatially overlapping region (i.e., the first road segment that the person sees at the first point in time, overlaps with the first road segment that the person sees at the second point in time, because it’s still the same first road segment the vehicle is traveling upon); and determining the identifiers of at least two road segments comprises: querying the map information using the location information of the target at the second moment to obtain the identifiers of the at least two road segments corresponding to the location information of the target at the second moment, the at least two road segments overlapping in a height direction (i.e., person remembers and obtains from their memory (i.e. query) a mental map that shows two roads overlapping each other vertically, and the person’s mind can then infer the names of those two roads based on remembering the two vertically overlapping roads); and
determining, based on the local topology map of the first moment and the identifiers of the at least two road segments corresponding to the target at the second moment (i.e., person performs determination based on constructed mental map of the first point in time of driving and the names of the 2 intersecting roads corresponding to the rock at the second point in time), an identifier of a road segment in which the target is located at the second moment (i.e., name of a 3rd intersecting road in which the rock is located at the intersection of the 3rd intersecting road and the first road segment, at the second point in time), wherein determining the identifier of the road segment comprises: querying the local topology map of the first moment to select, among the at least two road segments, the road segment in which the target is located at the second moment (i.e., person remembers and obtains from their memory (i.e. query) a mental map that shows two roads that are vertically overlapping, and the person’s mind can identify/select which of these two vertically overlapping roads is the person’s vehicle currently traveling upon).
Accordingly, the limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitations above cover performance of the limitations in the human mind and require no specific computer or computer components to carry out the steps. Accordingly, the claim limitations recite an abstract idea.
101 Analysis — Step 2A, Prong Il
Regarding Prong Il of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have identified that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea.
It is recited at a high level of generality and requires no specific computer, computer component, computer functionality, to perform the data gathering. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis — Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
In reference to dependent claim 2, 5, 6, and 8, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitation of dependent claim 2, 5, 6, and 8 further describe map information and road segment information included in the map information. The features of the map information, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses static information displayed on paper or the user’s mind as map data and/or topology map information that could be drawn using pen and paper as an aid. Thus, the claims include a mental process and falls under the ‘Mental Process’ category of abstract ideas.
In reference to dependent claim 3 and 4, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim 3 include a computer component (i.e. satellite) which provides coordinate data (i.e. location data) for determining where a vehicle is located and identifying a road in relation to the coordinate data. Dependent claim 14 includes similar limitations to that of claim 3 with the addition of ‘determining, based on laser point cloud data’ which encompasses a description of where static data on paper came from instead of any functionality with respect to how the ‘laser point cloud data’ is generated. The examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely perform data gathering (i.e. receiving step of receiving coordinate data) using a generic computer component (satellite signal). It is recited at a high level of generality and thus is interpreted as generic data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In reference to dependent claim 7, the claim recites similar limitations to those found in claim 1 except for the use of a ‘third moment’ after the ‘second moment’. The limitations include similar mental process steps to those found in claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
In reference to dependent claim 9, the claim recites the following:
displaying information about the second road segment on a display interface of a mobile phone; and/or broadcasting the information about the second road segment through speech by using the mobile phone.
The claim does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible.
Rather, the limitation of dependent claim 9 is directed to additional aspects of the abstract idea. A claim to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analyses, when recited at a high level of generality, recite a mental process containing steps that could practically be performed in the mind. Using a ‘mobile phone’ to display the result is interpreted as a computer component as a tool to perform a mental process. Thus, the limitation amounts to insignificant extra- solution activity of displaying a result.
In reference to dependent claim 10, the claim recites the following: displaying information about the second road segment on a display interface of a vehicle mounted terminal, and/or broadcasting the information about the second road segment through speech by using the vehicle-mounted terminal.
The claim does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitation of dependent claim 10 is directed to additional aspects of the abstract idea. A claim to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis’, when recited at a high level of generality, recite a mental process containing steps that could practically be performed in the mind. Using a ‘interface of a vehicle mounted terminal’ to display the result is interpreted as a computer component as a tool to perform a mental process. Thus, the limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying a result.
In reference to claims 11-20, the claims recite similar limitations to those found in 1-10. Therefore, the claims are rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment pertaining to the 101 abstract idea rejection has been considered but are not found persuasive.
The amended limitations added to the independent claims fail to overcome the 101 abstract idea rejection because they recite additional abstract ideas, not additional elements. Applicant provides their analysis on page 10 of the remarks 08/05/2025 that the amended claims 1, 11, and 20, are not directed to an Abstract Idea for Step 2A Prong One. The analysis reasons that the limitations of amended claim 1 are steps “performed using structured digital data…”, and that the new limitations involving “querying…” cannot be performed mentally by the human mind and require machine-based computation. Examiner disagrees because the limitation has to be given its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the term “query” does not necessarily require a computer, since human minds can perform queries as well. A human mind can query or bring out a mental image of a map using the location information of the target at the second moment. The same reasoning applies to the other amended limitation “querying the local topology map…”. In regards to the rest of the limitations paired with “query”, see the rejection cited above for detailed analysis that shows why this is considered a mental step. Thus, Examiner disagrees.
Applicant further argues on page 11 by providing an analysis for Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner agrees that the invention is useful, but the claim consists of entirely abstract ideas and not a single additional limitation that can integrate the claim into a practical application. To facilitate prosecution, the Applicant is encouraged to identify if the claim has any additional elements that were overlooked by the Examiner. Thus, the analysis is found unpersuasive because the analysis merely recites a non-generic non-conventional technical solution without identifying the specific additional limitations associated with that technical solution for integrating the claim into a practical application. In addition, the Examiner notes the claim consists of steps for calculating data, and no limitations that describe doing anything with that data e.g. displaying the data. Thus, Examiner disagrees.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to DAVID V LUU at telephone number (571)270-0703.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V LUU whose telephone number is (571)270-0703. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday from 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAVID V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights