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 .
This communication is in response to Amendment filed on May 19, 2026.
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 101 rejection of claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20, Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, do not recite mental steps, specifically that the ‘categorization of each location of a set of locations into a first area or a second area’ step cannot be performed by a human being i.e. the human being cannot iterative visibility calculations against a complex map database which may involve geometric border generation. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite the specificity of geometric border generation or the iterative visibility calculations as argued by Applicant. Rather, the categorization step is simply categorizing a location into one of a first area or a second area, which can be achieved mentally by a user determining which area within a map a location belongs. As such, Examiner maintains that the claims do recite mental steps.
Applicant has amended the claims to include generating first and second outputs by the application of machine learning models on the lane data and truncated lane data to correct lane merging, splitting geometries, gaps, overlapping geometries and orientation. Applicant furthermore argues that these amendments integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they result in a technological improvement by reciting selective processing using multiple models by applying first and second machine learning models to lane data and by reconstruction of lane geometry by connecting truncated segments using a generated line connector to produce optimized lane data. However the recitation of the generation of output by applying machine learning models to input lane data to correct lane merging, splitting geometries, gaps, overlapping geometries and orientation is an intended field of use for the generating of output steps by inputting data into machine learning models. The claims do not recite specific steps as to how any correction of lane merging, splitting of geometries, gaps, overlapping geometries and orientation is implemented. Furthermore, the connection of truncated data to optimize lane data based on the first and second output data again 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;
generate a first output by applying a first machine learning model on the lane data determined in the first group and a first portion of the truncated lane data determined in the third group to correct lane merging and splitting geometries, and generate a second output by applying a second machine learning model on the lane data determined in the second group and a second portion of the truncated lane data determined in the third group to correct gaps, overlapping geometries and orientation; and
connect the truncated lane data by use of a generated line connector to optimize the lane data based on the first output and the second output; and
providing the optimized lane data to a navigation device to perform navigation related functions.
Step 1: The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claims 1, 12 and 20 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “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” is a mental step. One can mentally determine which area within a map a location belongs. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “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” is a mental step. One can mentally assign a set of data to a specific group based on a given location. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitations “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, by 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” are mental steps. A person could mentally abbreviate lane data associated with different groups. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Furthermore, the limitation “connect the truncated lane data to optimize the lane data based on the first output and the second output” is also a mental step. A person could perform this step mentally or using pen and paper to perform the connection of lane data. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite the limitations “generate a first output based on the lane data determined in the first group and a first portion of the truncated lane data determined in the third group to correct lane merging and splitting geometries” and “generate a second output based on the lane data determined in the second group and a second portion of the truncated lane data determined in the third group to correct gaps, overlapping geometries and orientation”. These limitations are additional elements and is applying the judicial exception to implement them using generic machine learning models on the lane data and portions of truncated lane data to correct lane merging and splitting geometries and to correct gaps, overlapping geometries and orientation without disclosing the details as to how these steps are accomplished other than to apply the models on the input data and generating some output. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the “generate a first output based on the lane data determined in the first group and a first portion of the truncated lane data determined in the third group to correct lane merging and splitting geometries” and “generate a second output based on the lane data determined in the second group and a second portion of the truncated lane data determined in the third group to correct gaps, overlapping geometries and orientation” limitations do not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “providing the optimized lane data to a navigation device to perform navigation related functions” is an additional element and is mere output recited at a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as ‘selecting information for display' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite the following additional elements “a system”, at least one processor”, “memory”, “first and second machine learning models”, “generated line connector” and “navigation device”- note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer hardware and software components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of “generating a first output based on the lane data determined in the first group and a first portion of the truncated lane data determined in the third group to correct lane merging and splitting geometries” and “generating a second output based on the lane data determined in the second group and a second portion of the truncated lane data determined in the third group to correct gaps, overlapping geometries and orientation” are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
With respect to the “providing” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2-5, and 13 depend from claims 1 and 12 and thus include all the limitations of claims 1 and 12, therefore claims 2-5, and 13 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 2-5 and 13 furthermore recite:
(claims 2, 4, and 5): “categorize the topological area associated with a map, into the first area and the second area, based on a type of the topological area”, “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”, and “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”;
(claims 3 and 13): 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.
Step 1: Claims 2-5 and 13 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 2-5 and 13 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claims 1 and 12 that recite mental steps.
The limitations “categorize the topological area associated with a map, into the first area and the second area, based on a type of the topological area”, “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”, and “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” in claims 2, 4 and 5 are mental steps. One can mentally assign an area on a map into different areas based on a type of topology of the areas and the type of area. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitations “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” in claims 3 and 13 are mental steps. One can draw a border on a map using pen and paper to separate areas on a map and choose a buffer for each area. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Furthermore, Claims 2 and 3 recite the following additional elements “at least one processor”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer hardware and software components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 2-5, and 13 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 8-11 and 16-19 depend from claims 1 and 12 and thus include all the limitations of claims 1 and 12, therefore claims 8-11 and 16-19 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 8-11 and 16-19 furthermore recite:
(claims 8 and 16):
“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 9 and 17): “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 10 and 18):
“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 11 and 19):
“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”.
Step 1: Claims 8-11 and 16-19 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 8-11 and 16-19 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claims 1 and 12 that recite mental steps.
The limitations ““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” in claims 8 and 16 are mental steps. One can mentally select nodes corresponding to lane marking data. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “categorize the first location into the first area based on at least one of: a map matching method or a point-in polygon method” in claims 9 and 17 are mental steps. One can mentally categorize locations into an area based on utilizing a map matching method. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “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” in claims 10 and 18 is a mental step. A human could mentally or using pen and paper truncate data pertaining to lane markings based on criteria of a distance between different nodes and being categorized in certain area. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation ““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” in claims 11 and 19 is a mental step. A human could mentally or using pen and paper truncate data pertaining to lane markings based on criteria of a distance between different nodes and being categorized in certain area. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Furthermore, Claims 8-11 recite the following additional elements “at least one processor”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer hardware and software components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 8-11 and 16-19 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
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 were found to be novel and/or non-obvious for the reasons stated in the Non-final Office Action dated May 21, 2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al (US 2022/0089164) directed to: resolving conflicts in merge area by adjusting speed to complete safe merging sequence to avoid collision [para 30, 86 and drawings]; machine learning algorithms [para 103];
Ucar (US 2022/0089162) directed to: resolving a standoff by a vehicle (e.g. a dispute for a right of way between vehicles) wherein the machine learning model may improve actions of the standoff solutions 290 and thereby improving the likelihood of resolving the standoff [para 6, 19, 32, Fig 2 and related portions of specification];
Guo (US 2022/0068123) directed to: improving monitoring of traffic flows by completing graph structure from aggregated perception data associated with a road network- denoising graph structure according to road constraints [Abstract]; generating a graph model of traffic flows in a geographic area by completing, auto-completing, cleaning, or correcting the graph structure of matrix G- [para 45, Fig 5 and related portions of specification];
McNew (US 2021/0158696) directed to: mitigating anomalies in lane change detection [Abstract; Fig 6-8 and related portions of specification].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 M-F: 10am-6:30pm.
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
Prosecution Insights