DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/2/26 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 10, 15-16 and 18-19 are amended. Claims 15-20 were previously withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-14 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
However, at least one argument remains relevant to the current claims.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 Applicant asserts “the identified lack of clarity is resolved by the amended claim language, and the interpretation asserted in the Office Action of "lane data" as a GPS trace of a vehicle is not applicable to amended claim 1. A GPS trace of the vehicle represents a location of the vehicle at various points in time, but it does not represent a lane, let alone a lane of a lane-graph. The reference to paragraphs [0045]-[0046] of the specification related to line segment points being represented in a coordinate space local to the vehicle position conflates the coordinate system in which lane data may be expressed with the lane data itself. Further, amended claim 1 recites a geometric similarity between the consecutive road sections (of a road-graph) and the lane (of the lane-graph) rather than a geometric similarity of a physical lane and road.”
However, the specification explicitly states the position of the vehicle can be used as the lane data representing a lane of the lane graph. For example, ¶ 47 states “A lane-graph may be generated for any region or area. As one example, a lane-graph may correspond with a region including a frustum having a near plane behind the vehicle and a far plane ahead of the vehicle, with the vehicle location being towards the rear of the frustum and centered along the longitudinal axis of the frustum. Furthermore, FIG. 5 depicts lane graph l as a single circuitous and contiguous line relative to road segments ra-rd. If line graph l does not correspond to a GPS vehicle position trace it is unclear what lane data could be responsible for creating line graph l in view of the road segments shown. For example, it is unclear how detected lane lines could resemble line graph l since, generally, the shape of lane lines at least somewhat conform to the shape of the roads they are on, i.e., a perfectly straight road section would not have lane lines depicted in lane graph l. Accordingly, claim 1 remains unclear as to the limitation “geometric similarity between the lane and the consecutive road sections” as noted in more detail below in the 112(b) rejection.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 1, Applicant asserts claim 1 does not recite a mental process because claim 1 does not recite any limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind (Amend. 15-16). Applicant reasons this is because the claim recites a “graph” data structure. However, under a broadest reasonable interpretation a graph can simply be a line1. A human passenger viewing a road and lane can easily mentally generate a line superimposed over a viewed lane or road. A human passenger could also easily replicate the superimposed lines and compare them using pen and paper. The examiner also disagrees with Applicant that it is outside the mental capacity of humanity to look at a completely straight road including a road boundary and a lane line, replicate these lines on a piece of paper and determine a relative distance or angle between the lines. Applicant has failed to provide any case law, reasoning or rationale as to why this would be the case. With respect to the performing step, the specification indicates the operation can merely by “planning” (Spec. ¶ 8), i.e., planning a navigation route, which can also be performed mentally by a human, i.e., no vehicle control step is required.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Silver, Applicant asserts Silver fails to teach or suggest "receiving road data representing road sections of a road-graph and lane data representing a lane of a lane-graph associated with a location of an ego-machine" as recited in amended claim 1 (Amend. 20) because “pre-stored map information and the detected objects represent individual features in the environment, not road sections of a road-graph or a lane of a lane-graph, and Silver does not describe organizing such features into a graph structure of a road or a lane”.
First, it is important to note information representing individual features in the environment is not mutually exclusive with road sections of a road-graph or a lane of a lane-graph as inferred by Applicant. Second, Applicant fails to provide an explanation as to why the citations of Silver cannot be considered a road or lane graph. To this point, the specification fails to provide a limiting definition of the term “graph”. Accordingly, the Examiner uses the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term which can simply include a line2 such that a line representing a road and a line representing a lane are within the BRI of a road graph and a line graph, respectively. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 1 are particularly broad and in the main require matching lines based on geometric similarity, which can simply be comparing a relative distance or angle between a line representing a road and a line representing a lane, generating a representation of the comparison, and then performing an operation based on the representation. Silver discloses this concept throughout the reference as cited in more detail below. For example, in FIG. 7 and 10A-10B reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For example, stored map information may include location of road boundaries (col. 1, ll. 24-25) including curbs, barriers, road surface transitions and guard rails which define a navigable boundary of the road (col. 4, ll. 43-49; col. 8, ll. 5-7 maps identifying shapes and geographic coordinates of roadways). For example, Silver describes the cross shaped outer edges 310 and 610 shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 6 as the boundaries of the roadway (col. 10, l. 65- col. 11, l. 9 “roadway 600 including intersection 602 . . . location of intersection 602 may correspond to the location of intersection 302 . . . the roadway has been widened”). To illustrate the determination of geometric similarity step, a stored map roadway boundary, i.e., road graph 610 depicted by a dark line may correspond to road graph 1020, 1040 in FIG. 10A-10B. Here, it is determined whether detected lane graphs 1010, 1030 match road graphs 1020, 1040 using precisely the same matching conditions used by Applicant in the specification using a distance threshold (Spec. ¶ 84 / Silver FIG. 10A) and an angle threshold (Spec. ¶ 85/ Silver FIG. 10B) to determine a “match” or correspondence within a threshold constraint.
Applicant further asserts that Silver fails to teach or suggest "determining that consecutive road sections of the road sections match the lane based at least on a geometric similarity between the lane and the consecutive road sections" because although Silver does disclose segmentation (i.e., road graph 610 segmented as shown in FIG. 1020), this cannot be considered a section because the segments “represent arbitrary subdivisions of a single curve”. However, the claims do not require: 1) the road sections are non-curved or 2) any restrictions on how the sections are determined. Accordingly, arguments directed the prior art discussing curves and arbitrary subdivisions are insufficient to rebut the prima facie obviousness found by the Examiner. See MPEP § 2145, VI (“Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)”); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-72, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-1065 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988) (Various limitations on which appellant relied were not stated in the claims; the specification did not provide evidence indicating these limitations must be read into the claims to give meaning to the disputed terms.).
Furthermore, Silver explicitly discloses a segment by segment match determination along a roadway, i.e., segments depicted in FIG. 10A-10B which is used in consecutive road sections to determine whether consecutive sections match, i.e., with respect to FIG. 9, consecutive sections (820/822 and 822/824) of road graph may be considered consecutive road matches that match a lane since the geometric similarity, i.e., distance threshold may be met (i.e., within distance threshold T1, FIG. 10A), whereas the following consecutive section (824/826) may be outside the distance threshold due to separation distance 912, for example. Similarly, FIG. 7 depicts another visual example. Here, for example, the road graph representing the right roadway edge may be a series of 0.5 m consecutive section (i.e., col. 11, ll. 45-51 0.5 m segments or other selectable predetermined distances) matches since the lane graph and roadway graph are longitudinally co-located while the road graph representing the left roadway edge may not have any matches since the road graph and lane graph are separated by a distance that may exceed the distance threshold T1. Accordingly, Applicants arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Silver is unpersuasive.
Applicant requests the rejoinder of claim 15-20 (Amend. 22-23). Claims 15-17 (invention II) and claims 18-20 (invention III) were non-elected without traverse in the response dated 1/27/26. Applicant asserts “that claims 15 and 18 have been amended to include features corresponding to those of amended claim 1”. However, claims 15-17 and 18-20 will not be rejoined because they remain distinct inventions for at least the reasons stated in the restriction requirement dated 12/23/25. For example, claim 15 requires performing operations corresponding to the same ego machine that detects road sections of a road graph and lanes of a lane graph, not required for inventions I and III. For example, invention I could be carried out at a remote server while invention II requires active detection by an ego machine. Invention III also does not require active detection by the ego machine as required in invention II. Invention II merely requires performing an operation “corresponding to” the ego machine whereas Invention III requires performing an operation associated with control of the ego machine. In addition, Invention I requires receiving road and lane data whereas invention III does not.
Specification
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn as a result of the amendment to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “a geometric similarity between the lane and the consecutive road sections” constitutes unclear antecedent characterization. Each of “lane data”, “a lane of a lane graph” and “a lane graph” are previously recited. FIG. 5 depicts lane graph l such that under a BRI it is unclear what the lane of the lane graph would be. The specification appears to compare a lane graph with a road graph, i.e., two lines. Does Applicant consider a line to be a lane? Although a lane graph may represent a lane, it is unclear how the lane graph itself posses a lane.
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.
1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim 1, the claims recite the abstract idea of:
receiving road data representing road sections of a road graph and lane data representing a lane of a lane graph associated with a location of an ego-machine;
determining that consecutive road sections match the lane based at least on a geometric similarity between the lane and the consecutive road sections; and
generating a representation of the lane being mapped to the consecutive road sections based at least on the determining that the consecutive road sections matched the lane; and
performing one or more operations corresponding3 to the ego-machine based at least on the representation of the lane mapped to the consecutive road sections.
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since the above limitations could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
For example, a human could perform the above limitation entirely mentally, i.e., a passenger of a vehicle could mentally recall “road data” and could mentally receive lane data by looking at the lanes during driving, mentally determine if consecutive road sections match a lane based at least on a geometric similarity between the lane and the consecutive road sections, mentally generate a representation of the lane being mapped to the consecutive road sections based at least on the determining that the consecutive road sections matched the lane and mentally perform a safe planning operation corresponding to the vehicle based on the mentally generated representation. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III, A (“claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include . . . a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”)
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). This follows conclusion follows from the claim limitations fail to recite any additional elements outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of a controller does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation “receiving road data representing road sections and lane data representing a lane associated with a location of an ego-machine” constitutes insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the limitation “performing one or more operations corresponding4 to the ego-machine based at least on the representation of the lane mapped to the consecutive road sections” is insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, as mentioned above, no further additional elements are recited such that the claims fail to amount to an innovative concept. Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine” claim 14).
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US Patent No. 9321461 to Silver et al. (Silver)
With respect to claims 1 and 14, Silver discloses a method comprising:
receiving road data representing road sections of a road graph5 and lane data6 representing a lane of a lane graph associated with a location of an ego-machine;
(1210, 1220, FIG. 12, Receive data identifying an object detected in a vehicle's environment, the data including location coordinates for the object, corresponding feature from pre-stored map information; col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 vehicle perception sensor data detects shape and location coordinates of features such as lane lines 610-618, road data representing road sections from map information 612 divided into sections 810-818; FIG. 7-8, )
determining that consecutive road sections of the road sections match a lane based at least on a geometric similarity7 between the lane and the consecutive road sections; and
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
generating a representation of the lane being mapped to the consecutive road sections based at least on the determining that the consecutive road sections matched the lane; and
(FIG. 7-11 and corresponding description; 1230-1260, FIG. 12)
performing one or more operations corresponding to the ego-machine based at least on the representation of the lane mapped to the consecutive road sections.
(claim 1, determining and using steps, i.e., “using, by the one or more processors, the value to maneuver the vehicle in an autonomous driving mode”; col. 13, ll. 6-18)
With respect to claim 2, Silver discloses the determining that the consecutive road sections matched the lane based at least on the geometric similarity comprises:
determining that the lane is positioned within a distance threshold of one or more points along the consecutive road sections.
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
With respect to claim 3, Silver discloses the determining the consecutive road sections that match the lane based at least on the geometric similarity comprises:
determining the lane is positioned within a direction threshold of one or more points along the consecutive road sections.
(col. 11, l. 45- col. 12, l. 40; 312/ 912/ 814, FIG. 9; 1030, 1040, FIG. 10B)
With respect to claim 4, Silver discloses the determining the consecutive road sections that match the lane based at least on the geometric similarity comprises:
determining the lane is positioned within a distance threshold and a direction threshold of one or more points along the consecutive road sections.
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
(col. 11, l. 45- col. 12, l. 40; 312/ 912/ 814, FIG. 9; 1030, 1040, FIG. 10B)
With respect to claim 5, Silver discloses the determining the consecutive road sections that match the lane based at least on the geometric similarity comprises:
iteratively determining that one or more points along the consecutive road sections are positioned within a distance threshold of the lane based at least on extending one or more perpendicular line segments from the one or more points along the consecutive road sections to intersect with the lane.
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
(col. 11, l. 45- col. 12, l. 40; 312/ 912/ 814, FIG. 9; 1030, 1040, FIG. 10B)
With respect to claim 6, Silver discloses the one or more points along the consecutive road sections are positioned a predetermined distance between consecutive points of the one or more points.
(i.e., regular intervals 820-830, FIG. 8-9 and corresponding description)
With respect to claim 7, Silver discloses the determining the consecutive road sections that match the lane based at least on the geometric similarity comprises:
determining the lane is positioned within a distance threshold and a direction threshold for at least a predetermined number of points along the consecutive road sections.
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
(col. 11, l. 45- col. 12, l. 40; 312/ 912/ 814, FIG. 9; 1030, 1040, FIG. 10B)
With respect to claim 8, Silver discloses the determining the consecutive road sections that match the lane based at least on the geometric similarity comprises:
determining the lane is positioned within a distance threshold and a direction threshold for one or more points positioned along the consecutive road sections for at least a predetermined distance.
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
(col. 11, l. 45- col. 12, l. 40; 312/ 912/ 814, FIG. 9; 1030, 1040, FIG. 10B)
With respect to claim 9, Silver discloses generating a representation of an extent to which the consecutive road sections match the lane based at least on the geometric similarity between the lane and the consecutive road sections.
(1260, FIG. 12; col. 5, ll. 12-56; col. 12, ll. 42-65)
With respect to claim 10, Silver discloses the generating the representation of the extent of which the consecutive road sections match the lane is based at least on a sum of one or more inverses of one or more distances between the lane and one or more sampled locations8 along the consecutive road sections.
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
(col. 11, l. 45- col. 12, l. 40; 312/ 912/ 814, FIG. 9; 1030, 1040, FIG. 10B)
With respect to claim 12, Silver discloses the representation of the lane mapped to the consecutive road sections comprises
a representation of a start and end location of a section along the lane,
a representation of an identity of at least a portion of the consecutive road sections, and
a representation of a start and end location of at least one road section.
(i.e., features, tags, metadata, geographic coordinates, FIG. 7-11 and corresponding description, i.e., col. 3, ll. 4-29; col. 4, ll. 43-55; col. 8, ll. 16-30; col. 5, ll. 1-11 feature may be divided into two or more segments. These segments may be described as a pair of points that correspond to a starting geographic location coordinate and an ending geographic location coordinate of the segment)
With respect to claim 13, Silver discloses selecting the lane based at least on the lane having a position along its geometry within a maximum distance from the location of the ego-machine (col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 25 identified lanes must be within perception range of vehicle perception system in order to be selected; cl. 1 “identifying an object detected in a vehicle's environment”)
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver in view of 20180189578 to Yang et al. (Yang)
With respect to claim 11, Silver discloses determining to generate the representation of the lane being mapped to the consecutive road sections based at least on a representation of an extent to which the consecutive road sections match the lane
(1260, FIG. 12; col. 5, ll. 12-56; col. 12, ll. 42-65)
However, Silver fails to explicitly disclose the determination is dependent on a matching extent being greater than other matching extents. Yang, from the same field of endeavor, discloses determining to generate a representation of a lane mapped to a road section is based on a matching extent being greater than other matching extents
(i.e., based on a distance and direction (ray) qualifying road/ lane matches are determined, then qualifying intersections are further considered are ranked by a matching extent (i.e., distance and/or rules i) – iii) until final lane cuts for intersection are selected, ¶ 193; FIG. 37-43 and corresponding description; 191-192 template matching . . . best matches; 195 template match algorithm, automatically create lane connectors; 214 identify a best match to a known intersection configuration of a collection of known intersection configurations)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to generate lane/ road mappings that are better matches than other lane/ road mappings, as taught by Yang, in the system of Silver, in order to reduce compute power by only generating the most likely pairings. In addition, the teachings of Silver allow generating a complete connected graph of lane elements with respect to a road boundary such as an intersection providing appropriate information required for safe autonomous driving with maximum map storage efficiency (¶ 6, 55, 58).
Conclusion
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 KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 See graph line l, FIG. 5 of specification; No limiting definition of “graph” provided in the specification. The specification appears to indicate lane graph is used synonymously with lane data (Spec. ¶42 “lane-graph data (or lane data), such as lane graph data 116 may refer to any data used to represent a lane graph. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “graph” can include a drawn line, i.e., a series of one or more points, lines, line segments, curves or areas that represents variation of a variable relative to another variable. See definition of “Graph”, Merriam Webster Dictionary, available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graph
2 No limiting definition of “graph” provided in the specification. The specification appears to indicate lane graph is used synonymously with lane data (Spec. ¶42 “lane-graph data (or lane data), such as lane graph data 116 may refer to any data used to represent a lane graph. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “graph” can includes a line, i.e., a series of one or more points, lines, line segments, curves or areas that represents variation of a variable relative to another variable. See definition of “Graph”, Merriam Webster Dictionary, available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graph.
3 Operations corresponding to the ego-can include planning (published specification (spec.) ¶ 8 “operations related to . . . safe planning”)
4 Operations corresponding to the ego-can include planning (published specification (spec.) ¶ 8 “operations related to . . . safe planning”)
5 No limiting definition of “graph” provided in the specification. The specification appears to indicate lane graph is used synonymously with lane data (Spec. ¶42 “lane-graph data (or lane data), such as lane graph data 116 may refer to any data used to represent a lane graph. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “graph” can include a drawn line, i.e., a series of one or more points, lines, line segments, curves or areas that represents variation of a variable relative to another variable. See definition of “Graph”, Merriam Webster Dictionary, available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graph
6 No limiting definition provided but can include “lane graph data, any data used to represent a lane graph” (¶ 42); perception collected information extracted from the environment (¶43). See also 112(b) rejection above for BRI of “lane data” and “lane”.
7 Geometric similarity at least includes a distance threshold (Spec. ¶ 6 “match conditions . . . indicating geometric similarity . . . a lane being within a distance threshold to a road . . . within a predetermined distance . . . may be considered to match the road”; 30; 84) and a directional or angular threshold or degree threshold (¶ 85).
8 Based on a broadest reasonable interpretation the “sum” inverse distances can be the inverse of a single distance.
Prosecution Insights