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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 2, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20 are pending. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are amended. Claims 6 and 14 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Referring to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 20, Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged. As such, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 20 is withdrawn.
Referring to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20, Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, provide a practical application by enabling efficient and accurate correction of the lane data associated with the lane markings because the claims additionally recite that the optimized lane data is provided to a navigation device to perform navigation related tasks. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and states that the claims do not recite any correction of lane data that results from the implementation of the judicial exception. Furthermore, as addressed in the prior response, the limitation ‘to optimize the lane data’ is an intended field of use limitation and does not provide any details of the steps involved in achieving the optimization. Additionally, the recitation of the provision of the optimized lane data to a navigation device to perform navigation related functions is a limitation that is considered an attempt to tie the judicial exception generally to the technological field of navigation related functionality without specific details as to how the optimization of the lane data is achieved.
As such, Examiner maintains that the claims do not recite a practical application for the judicial exception and remain rejected under 35 USC 101 and further as addressed below.
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 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite: categorizing each location of a set of locations included in the lane data of each lane marking of the plurality of lane markings, into at least one of: a first area or a second area of a topological area; determining the lane data of each lane marking to be in at least one of: a first group, a second group or a third group, based on each categorized location of the set of locations; and processing the lane data associated with each lane marking of the plurality of lane markings based on the determined first group, the second group or the third group, wherein to process the lane data, the at least one processor is further configured to: truncate the lane data of one or more lane markings of the plurality of lane markings determined in the third group, wherein the third group is associated with both of the first area and the second area; apply a first model on the lane data determined in the first group and a first portion of the truncated lane data determined in the third group, and a second model on the lane data determined in the second group and a second portion of the truncated lane data determined in the third group; and connect the truncated lane data by use of a generated line connector to optimize the lane data; and providing the optimized lane data to a navigation device to perform navigation related functions.
The limitations of categorizing each location of a set of locations ..into at least one of: a first area or a second area of a topological area; determining the lane data of each lane marking to be in at least one of: a first group, a second group or a third group, based on each categorized location of the set of locations; processing the lane data associated with each lane marking .. based on the determined first group, the second group or the third group, truncating the lane data of one or more lane markings of the plurality of lane markings determined in the third group, wherein the third group is associated with both of the first area and the second area; applying a first model on the lane data determined in the first group and a first portion of the truncated lane data determined in the third group, and a second model on the lane data determined in the second group and a second portion of the truncated lane data determined in the third group; and connecting the truncated lane data by use of a generated line connector to optimize the lane data, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by at least one processor” (in claim 1) nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by at least one processor” (in claim 1), the categorizing, determining, processing, truncating, applying and connecting steps in the context of these claims encompasses the user performing these steps in the mind. 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional step of providing the optimized lane data to a navigation device to perform navigation related functions.
The providing of the optimized lane data to a navigation device to perform navigation related functions is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic function of sending data to a navigation device to process the data for navigation related functions and is considered generally linking the judicial exception (i.e. the sending of the connected truncated lane data for optimization) to a navigation related technological environment to perform navigation related functions based on the abstract idea of connecting lane data.
The combination of this additional step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. the at least one processor). As such, this additional step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The providing of the connected truncated lane data to a navigation device to perform navigation related functions does not add significantly more to the abstract ideas of performing the connecting steps and is merely generally linking the judicial exception to a technological environment, similar to Parker v. Flook ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable", see Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010)).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component such as a generic processor cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8-11, 13, and 16-19 depend from claims 1 and 12 and thus include all the limitations of claims 1 and 12, therefore claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8-11, 13, and 16-19 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8-11, 13, and 16-19 furthermore recite that:
the at least one processor is further configured to categorize the topological area associated with a map, into the first area and the second area, based on a type of the topological area (claim 2);
generate a border between the first area and the second area to separate the first area from the second area; and determine a buffer area for each of the first area and the second area, wherein the buffer area is further utilized to categorize the set of locations into at least one of: the first area or the second area of the topological area (claims 3, 13);
that the type of the topological area comprises one of: an intersection or a non-intersection, a ramp area or a non-ramp area, and a highway or a non-highway (claim 4);
the first area corresponds to one of: the intersection, the ramp area, or the highway, and the second area corresponds to on one of: the non-intersection, the non-ramp area, or the non-highway (claim 5);
determine a reference node corresponding to a first end of a line string associated with a lane and a non-reference node corresponding to a second end point of the line string associated with the lane, wherein the plurality of lane markings are associated with the lane; and categorize at least a first location of the set of locations into the first area based on a determination that: the first location lies within a predefined threshold of at least one of: the reference node or the non-reference node, wherein the reference node and the non-reference node are associated with the first area; and the first location lies within a buffer area for the first area, wherein the buffer area is determined with respect to the reference node and the non-reference node (claims 8, 16);
categorize the first location into the first area based on at least one of: a map matching method or a point-in polygon method (claims 9 and 17);
truncate the lane data of one or more lane markings of the plurality of lane markings determined in the third group in two lane markings, based on a determination that the first location of the lane data of each lane marking of the one or more lane markings lies within the predefined threshold of at least one of: the reference node or the non-reference node, and a second location of the lane data of each lane marking is categorized in the second area (claims 10, 18); and
truncate the lane data of the one or more lane markings in three lane markings, based on a determination that the first location of the lane data of each lane marking lies within the predefined threshold of the reference node, and the second location of the lane data of each lane marking lies within the predefined threshold of the non-reference node (claims 11, 19).
All of these claims recite limitations that are mental steps that can also be performed in the human mind.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8-11, 13, and 16-19 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or teach significantly more than the judicial exception.
As such, claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8-11, 13, and 16-19 are not patent eligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) above are further rejected as set forth
below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
Novel/non-obvious/Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20, as currently presented, were found to be novel and/or non-obvious for the reasons stated in the Non-final Office Action dated May 21, 2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S/
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164