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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species b in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 5, 6, 8-10, and 21 are withdrawn as being directed to non-elected inventions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 7, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” and “certain method of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes and sales activities or business relations.
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
obtaining, by at least one processor, mapping data characterizing an environment the mapping data indicating boundaries of a first road lane in the environment;
identifying, by the at least one processor, a portion of the first road lane as a narrowed road lane, the narrowed road lane having a reduced width in at least a portion of the narrowed road lane compared to a width of the first road lane;
evaluating, by the at least one processor, a plurality of candidate travel paths in a search space that includes the narrowed road lane and excludes at least a portion of the first road lane that is not included in the narrowed road lane; and
determining, by the at least one processor, a particular travel path for a vehicle through the narrowed road lane based on the evaluation of the plurality of candidate travel paths, wherein the plurality of candidate travel paths include the particular travel path.
The claim recites “identifying a portion of the first road lane as a narrowed road lane”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a processor performs the task. That is, other than reciting “by the at least one processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could recognize a narrow lane visually/mentally. This step is directed to a mental process.
The claim recites “evaluating... a plurality of candidate travel paths”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a processor performs the task. That is, other than reciting “by the at least one processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could mentally evaluate a plurality of potential paths in maneuvering through a narrowed lane. This step is directed to a mental process.
The claim recites “determining... a particular travel path... based on the evaluation”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a processor performs the task. That is, other than reciting “by the at least one processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could mentally select a path among a plurality of options. This step is directed to a mental process.
The Examiner notes that the above recited mental steps are routinely performed mentally by a human driver in various driving situations.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception 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”).
Claim 1 recites the additional limitation of “by at least one processor”. According to the specification, the computer is identified as a general purpose computer such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a generic computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the identifying, evaluation, and determining steps. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes using a generic or general-purpose processor.
The claim limitation of “obtaining... mapping data” is directed to extra-solution activity of gathering data. This step amounts to mere data outputting which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Per the evaluation in step 2A, general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or filed of use is not indicative of an inventive concept (significantly more).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps of “obtaining... mapping data” were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein does not provide any indication that the processor and network are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claims 2-4, 17, and 20 merely further define the type of information used to identify the narrowed road and are similarly ineligible.
Claims 7, 11-14 recite defining and utilizing an optimization process for selecting the path. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a processor performs the task. That is, other than reciting “by the at least one processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could mentally or on paper evaluate a plurality of nodes representing paths to select a path among a plurality of options. This step is directed to a mental process.
Claim 15 recites “providing... the path to a vehicle”. This limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Claims 16-20 are similarly ineligible as directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more, with the exception of differing statutory categories.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 16-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh (US 2021/0109536).
Regarding claim 1:
Oh teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, by at least one processor, mapping data characterizing an environment the mapping data indicating boundaries of a first road lane in the environment (precise map 215, infrastructure detector 221, see at least ¶0057-0063);
identifying, by the at least one processor, a portion of the first road lane as a narrowed road lane, the narrowed road lane having a reduced width in at least a portion of the narrowed road lane compared to a width of the first road lane (identifying drivable area based on object information detector 221, see at least ¶0067-0080, Figs. 4a, b, 10);
evaluating, by the at least one processor, a plurality of candidate travel paths in a search space that includes the narrowed road lane and excludes at least a portion of the first road lane that is not included in the narrowed road lane (see at least plurality of paths 1002, Fig. 10, ¶0048-0050, ¶0097); and
determining, by the at least one processor, a particular travel path for a vehicle through the narrowed road lane based on the evaluation of the plurality of candidate travel paths, wherein the plurality of candidate travel paths include the particular travel path (see at least ¶0100-0101).
Regarding claim 2:
Oh further teaches identifying, by the at least one processor, the narrowed road lane using an environmental feature in proximity to the first road lane (see at least ¶0072).
Regarding claim 3:
Oh further teaches wherein identifying the narrowed road lane comprises identifying the narrowed road lane based on a parking feature, a curb feature, or a construction feature (see at least ¶0071-0072).
Regarding claim 4:
Oh further teaches wherein identifying the portion of the first road lane as the narrowed road lane comprises: excluding, from the narrowed road lane compared to the first road lane, an area adjacent to the environmental feature (see at least Fig. 4b, ¶0071-0072).
Regarding claim 16-17 and 19-20, Oh discloses a system comprising a processor and non-transitory computer readable medium for performing the method as in claims 1-4 above (see controller 40, storage 10).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 7, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0347382).
Regarding claim 7 and 18:
Oh teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Oh further teaches selecting a particular travel path based on an optimization process (see at least ¶0044-0045).
Oh is silent as to applying an optimization process to a plurality of nodes to obtain the particular travel path.
Huang teaches a system and method of vehicle path planning, including applying an optimization process to determine a plurality of nodes in a narrowed road lane and selecting a particular travel path based on the plurality of nodes (see at least abstract, ¶0117, Figs. 4, 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the vehicle trajectory planning system and method as taught by Oh with the well-known technique of optimizing a path through a plurality of nodes to select a path around an obstacle as taught by Huang in order to quickly and efficiently determine an optimal solution to a path planning problem.
Regarding claim 15:
Huang further discloses providing, by the at least one processor, the path to a vehicle for use in navigation of the first road lane (see at least ¶0028).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619