DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 December 2025 has been entered.
Summary
The Amendment filed on 2 December 2025 has been acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Currently, claims 1 – 11 are pending and considered as set forth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 25 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections,
The Applicant argues, “In response, Applicants have amended the claims, rendering moot the present rejection. In view of all of the foregoing, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and traverses that merely making statement of amendment should overcome the 101 rejection is not persuasive. The Applicant did not present how and why the amendment would overcome the 101 rejection. The Examiner is not convinced that amending the data type in the claim limitations would be sufficient to overcome the 101 rejection. Therefore, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections,
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 is directed to a method to receive sensor image data of autonomous vehicle’s environment, and detect the object external of the vehicle and determine lateral movement of the object. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow 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 (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for ascertaining a dynamic foreign object-driving corridor association using an image sensor of an ego vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
generating images of an environment of the ego vehicle using the image sensor;
using the images in a native measuring space of the image sensor, performing:
ascertaining a driving corridor of the ego vehicle along which the ego vehicle will be moving from roadway information represented as polygon chains or splines and/or using odometry of the ego vehicle,
detecting foreign objects, and
ascertaining at least one kinematic variable is ascertained for at least one of the foreign objects; and
based on the at least one kinematic variable and the driving corridor, ascertaining at least one dynamic foreign object-driving corridor association for a lateral movement of the foreign object.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “ascertaining…,”, and “detecting …,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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 2019 PEG, 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 indicated 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, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
A method for ascertaining a dynamic foreign object-driving corridor association using an image sensor of an ego vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
generating images of an environment of the ego vehicle using the image sensor;
using the images in a native measuring space of the image sensor, performing:
ascertaining a driving corridor of the ego vehicle along which the ego vehicle will be moving from roadway information represented as polygon chains or splines and/or using odometry of the ego vehicle,
detecting foreign objects, and
ascertaining at least one kinematic variable is ascertained for at least one of the foreign objects; and
based on the at least one kinematic variable and the driving corridor, ascertaining at least one dynamic foreign object-driving corridor association for a lateral movement of the foreign object.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “generating images of an environment of the ego vehicle …,” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the generating steps from the vehicle apparatus is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering the foreign object data around the ego vehicle for use in the ascertaining step), and amounts to mere 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. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, 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, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does 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 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “generating images of an environment of the ego vehicle …,” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “generating images of an environment of the ego vehicle …,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “generating images of an environment of the ego vehicle …,” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere communication of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2 – 10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 – 10 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 11 recites same or substantially similar limitations as claims 1 – 10. Therefore claim 11 is rejected under same rationales.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 – 4 and 10 – 11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. (Hereinafter Das) (US 11663726 B2) in view of Shalev-Shwartz et al. (Hereinafter Shalev) (US 2021/0171023 A1)
As per claim 1, Das teaches limitations of: a method for ascertaining a dynamic foreign object-driving corridor association using an image sensor of an ego vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
generating images of an environment of the ego vehicle using the image sensor (See at least column 1 line 13 – 15; Autonomous vehicle may use sensors to capture data regarding an environment through which the autonomous vehicle traverses);
using the images in a native measuring space of the image sensor (See at least abstract, column 1 line 13 – 15 and column 3 line 10 – 21; Tracking a current and/or previous position, velocity, acceleration, and/or heading of an object using sensor data may comprise determining whether to associate a current object detection generated from recently received (e.g., current) sensor data with a previous object detection generated from formerly received sensor data. In other words, a track may identify that an object detected in former sensor data is the same object detected in current sensor data. However, multiple types of sensor data may be used to detect objects and some objects may not be detected by different sensor types or may be detected differently, which may confound attempts to track an object. An ML model may be trained to receive outputs associated with different sensor types and/or a track associated with an object, and determine a data structure comprising a region of interest, object classification, and/or a pose associated with the object. … multiple object detections may be generated in association with a same object in the environment. These multiple object detections may be generated by different perception pipelines, which may be associated with different sensor types. For example, a lidar perception pipeline may receive lidar data and determine an object detection associated with an object, a hybrid lidar-vision perception pipeline may receive lidar and vision data and generate a different object detection associated with the same object, a vision perception pipeline may receive image(s) from a camera and generate an additional object detection associated the same object, and so on.) performing:
ascertaining a driving corridor of the ego vehicle along which the ego vehicle will be moving from roadway information and/or using odometry (See at least column 2 line 14 – 23; In other words, a track may identify that an object detected in former sensor data is the same object detected in current sensor data. In some examples, the track may additionally or alternatively comprise various current and/or previous data about the object useful for a planning component of an autonomous vehicle to predict motion/behavior of the object and to determine a trajectory and/or path for controlling the autonomous vehicle),
detecting foreign objects (See at least abstract and column 2 line 9 – 30; Techniques for tracking a current and/or previous position, velocity, acceleration, or heading of an object using sensor data may comprise determining whether to associate a current object detection generated from recently received (e.g., current) sensor data with a previous object detection generated from formerly received sensor data. In other words, a track may identify that an object detected in former sensor data is the same object detected in current sensor data. In some examples, the track may additionally or alternatively comprise various current and/or previous data about the object useful for a planning component of an autonomous vehicle to predict motion/behavior of the object and to determine a trajectory and/or path for controlling the autonomous vehicle. For example, the track may additionally or alternatively comprise an indication of region(s) of the environment currently and/or previously occupied by the object, an object classification associated with the object (e.g., a vehicle, an oversized vehicle, a pedestrian, a cyclist), a current/or previous heading associated with the object, a current and/or previous velocity and/or acceleration of the object, and/or a current position and/or velocity of the object, though any other parameter is contemplated.), and
ascertaining at least one kinematic variable is ascertained for at least one of the foreign objects (See at least abstract and column 2 line 9 – 30); and
based on the at least one kinematic variable and the driving corridor, ascertaining at least one dynamic foreign object-driving corridor association for a lateral movement of the foreign object (See at least abstract and column 2 line 9 – 30 and column 18 line 49 – 61; The multi-channel data structure 322 may be provided as input to the ML architecture 328, which may be trained to determine a final environment representation comprising one or more estimated object detection(s) 330. For example, the ML architecture 328 may determine a top-down representation of the environment comprising an indication that a portion of the environment is occupied, an ROI and/or object classification associated with the occupied portion (e.g., an object), an orientation of the object (e.g., yaw and/or yaw/heading bin), a velocity associated with the object (e.g., stationary/moving indication, a lateral and/or longitudinal velocity, yaw rate), a height associated with the object, and/or a predicted ROI associated with a future time step).
However, Das does not teach the amended claim limitation of:
ascertaining a driving corridor of the ego vehicle along which the ego vehicle will be moving from roadway information represented as polygon chains or splines and/or using odometry of the ego vehicle.
Shalev teaches the limitation of:
ascertaining a driving corridor of the ego vehicle along which the ego vehicle will be moving from roadway information represented as polygon chains or splines and/or using odometry of the ego vehicle (See at least paragraph 810; the prediction of the path of the host vehicle at the motion prediction time may be based on at least a determined speed for the host vehicle and a target trajectory for the host vehicle included in a map of a road segment on which the host vehicle travels. For example, the predicted path may be generated according to a semantic high-definition mapping technology, such as REM, discussed above. As an example, the road segment on which the host vehicle is traveling may be associated with a plurality of trajectories which may be used to navigate autonomous vehicles on the road segment and the predicted path may include a position on one of the target trajectories associated with the road segment. As another example, if the host vehicle is determined to be traveling according to a predetermined target trajectory, the predicted path at the motion prediction time may include a position, speed, and/or acceleration along the same target trajectory. In some embodiments, the target trajectory may include a predetermined three-dimensional spline representative of a preferred path along at least one lane of the road segment. For example, the three-dimensional spline may include a plurality of landmarks, road features, and other objects that define the target trajectory on the road segment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include ascertaining a driving corridor of the ego vehicle along which the ego vehicle will be moving from roadway information represented as polygon chains or splines and/or using odometry of the ego vehicle as taught by Shalev in the system of Das, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Das teaches limitation of:
wherein a lateral velocity of the foreign object relative to the driving corridor is ascertained as one of the at least one kinematic variable (See at least abstract and column 2 line 9 – 30 and column 18 line 49 – 61).
As per claim 3, Das teaches limitation of:
wherein a bounding box is assigned to the foreign object in the native measuring space, a movement of the bounding box is tracked over time and the lateral velocity of the foreign object relative to the driving corridor is ascertained from the movement (See at least abstract and column 2 line 9 – 30 and line 51 – 59 and Figure 4).
As per claim 4, Das teaches limitation of:
wherein an ego movement of the ego vehicle is utilized, and based on the velocity, a relative movement of the foreign object with regard to the driving corridor is ascertained as a dynamic foreign object- driving corridor association of the at least one dynamic foreign object-driving corridor association (See at least column 2 line 17 – 23, and column 7 line 5 – 23).
As per claim 10 , Das teaches limitation of:
wherein the at least one dynamic foreign object-driving corridor association is made available to a driver assistance system of the ego vehicle (See at least column 5 line 17 – 48).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claim 1 above, respectively.
Claims 5 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das and Shalev and in further view of Silva et al. (Hereinafter Silva) (US 2021/0370921 A1).
As per claim 5, Das teaches wherein a distance of the foreign object from the host vehicle is ascertained as a kinematic variable of the at least one kinematic variable (See at least column 16 line 6 – 7), but does not expressly teach limitation of:
wherein a distance of the foreign object from the driving corridor is ascertained as a kinematic variable of the at least one kinematic variable.
Silva teaches limitation of:
wherein a distance of the foreign object from the driving corridor is ascertained as a kinematic variable of the at least one kinematic variable (See at least paragraph 30 and 37).
Das and Silva both are in endeavored art of predicting the trajectories of objects and the vehicles and changing the vehicle’s action courses to avoid the potential collision with the object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein a distance of the foreign object from the driving corridor is ascertained as a kinematic variable of the at least one kinematic variable as taught by Silva in the system of Das and Shalev, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable with motivation of calculate offset distance for the vehicle to avoid potential collision with the object (paragraph 37).
As per claim 6, the combination of Das, Shalev and Silva teaches limitation of:
foreign objects that are located outside of the driving corridor are detected in the native measuring space (Das, see at least abstract and column 2 line 9 – 30, and Silva, see at least paragraph 1), a time-to-enter corridor at which the foreign object enters the driving corridor is ascertained as a dynamic foreign object-driving corridor association of the at least one dynamic foreign object-driving corridor association (Silva, see at least paragraph 41 – 42).
As per claim 7, the combination of Das, Shalev and Silva teaches limitation of:
foreign objects that are located within the driving corridor are detected in the native measuring space, a time-to-leave corridor at which the foreign object leaves the driving corridor is ascertained as a dynamic foreign object-driving corridor association of the at least one dynamic foreign object-driving corridor association (Silva, see at least paragraph 41 – 42).
As per claim 8, the combination of Das, Shalev and Silva teaches limitation of:
wherein a ratio of s distance of the foreign object from a boundary of the driving corridor and the lateral velocity is ascertained as the time-to- enter corridor (Silva, see at least paragraph 41).
As per claim 9, the combination of Das, Shalev and Silva teaches limitation of:
at least one geometrical variable of the foreign object is used, an exit probability of the foreign object leaving the driving corridor is ascertained using the at least one geometrical variable and the time-to-leave corridor (Das, see at least figure 5 and column 2 line 54 – 57, and Silva, see at least figure 2A – 2B and paragraph 41 – 42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662