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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on August 30, 2023. Claims 1-11 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-160760, filed on October 5, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 30, 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, lines 4-5, “earlier than the other one of them” could cause confusion. The Examiner recommends for clarity purposes that “them” should read “the boundary-line calculation determinators”.
Claim 9, lines 18-19, “a right side of the vehicle” should read “the right side of the vehicle”.
Claim 9, line 24, “a left side of the vehicle” should read “the left side of the vehicle”.
Claim 10, lines 13-14, “the traveling-lane-change information” is grammatically confusing. While the scope of the claim is reasonably ascertainable, the Examiner recommends amending “the traveling-lane-change information” to “the traveling-lane-change operation information”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first boundary-line calculation determinator” in claim 1.
“second boundary-line calculation determinator” in claim 1.
“traveling lane matcher” in claim 1.
“position estimator” in claim 1.
“traveling-lane-change operation information acquisitor” in claim 10.
“one or more additional boundary-line calculation determinators” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1, 10, and 11, claim limitations, “first boundary-line calculation determinator”, “second boundary-line calculation determinator”, “traveling lane matcher”, “position estimator”, “traveling-lane-change operation information acquisitor”, and “one or more additional boundary-line calculation determinators”, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification [0008, 0016-0019, 0031-0033, 0036, 0042-0044, 0046, 0047, 0049, 0051, 0053, 0055, 0057-0060, 0068, 0075, 0077, 0078, 0080-0085, 0087-0090, 0094, 0105, 0112-0114] recites these components but only recites the outcomes of their use, not what materials or acts are used to achieve the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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.
As to claim 3, the limitation “the crossing determination distance” at line 12 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to the Examiner if this is the same “a predetermined crossing determination distance” previously recited at line 5 or if this is a different distance. The Examiner notes that if it is a different distance, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, the limitation “the crossing determination time” at line 13 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to the Examiner if this is the same “a predetermined crossing determination time” previously recited at line 6 or if this is a different time. The Examiner notes that if it is a different time, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 5, the limitation “the distance” at line 2 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what “the distance” is referring to. Is it referring to the first distance? Or is it referring to the second distance? Moreover, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “a distance”.
As to claim 6, the limitation “the distance” at line 2 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what “the distance” is referring to. Is it referring to the first distance? Or is it referring to the second distance? Moreover, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “a distance”.
As to claim 11, the limitation “the additional boundary-line calculation determinator” at lines 10-11 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “an additional boundary-line calculation determinator”.
As to claim 1, 10, and 11, claim limitations, “first boundary-line calculation determinator”, “second boundary-line calculation determinator”, “traveling lane matcher”, “position estimator”, “traveling-lane-change operation information acquisitor”, and “one or more additional boundary-line calculation determinators” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification [0008, 0016-0019, 0031-0033, 0036, 0042-0044, 0046, 0047, 0049, 0051, 0053, 0055, 0057-0060, 0068, 0075, 0077, 0078, 0080-0085, 0087-0090, 0094, 0105, 0112-0114] recites these components but only recites the outcomes of their use, not what materials or acts are used to achieve the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2, 4, and 7-9 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a machine which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The independent claim (claim 1) recites the limitation of “calculate a first distance between a vehicle and the boundary line, and that determines whether or not the vehicle has crossed the boundary line, on a basis of the first distance”, “calculate a second distance between the vehicle and the boundary line, and that determines whether or not the vehicle has crossed the boundary line, on a basis of the second distance”, “adjusts at least one of the first distance and the second distance for matching, on a basis of: whether or not the vehicle has crossed the boundary line; and whether or not the vehicle has crossed the boundary line”, and “estimates a position of the vehicle on a basis of the first distance or the second distance”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation, as drafted, can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, otherwise considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at (observing) the data detected and calculates a first distance between a vehicle and the boundary line and determines whether or not the vehicle has crossed the boundary line on a basis of the first distance; calculates a second distance between the vehicle and the boundary line and determines whether or not the vehicle has crossed the boundary line on a basis of the second distance; observing at least one of the first distance and the second distance for matching; and estimates a position of the vehicle. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, the claim encompasses a user (person) simply calculating a first distance between a vehicle and the boundary line and determining whether or not the vehicle has crossed the boundary line, on a basis of the first distance; calculating a second distance between the vehicle and the boundary line and determining whether or not the vehicle has crossed the boundary line, on a basis of the second distance; adjusting at least one of the first distance and the second distance for matching, on a basis of: whether or not the vehicle has crossed the boundary line; and whether or not the vehicle has crossed the boundary line; and estimating a position of the vehicle on a basis of the first distance or the second distance in his/her mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a vehicle position estimation device, a first boundary-line calculation determinator, a second boundary-line calculation determinator, a traveling lane matcher, or a position estimator does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recites additional elements of “detects a position of a boundary line on a road”, “detects a position of the boundary line on the road”, a vehicle position estimation device, a first boundary-line calculation determinator, a second boundary-line calculation determinator, a traveling lane matcher, and a position estimator. The detecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving/gathering data) and amount to no more than data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a vehicle position estimation device”, “a first boundary-line calculation determinator”, “a second boundary-line calculation determinator”, “a traveling lane matcher”, and “a position estimator”, the Examiner submits the limitations are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “a vehicle position estimation device”, “a first boundary-line calculation determinator”, “a second boundary-line calculation determinator”, “a traveling lane matcher”, and “a position estimator” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The component(s) merely automate(s) the aforementioned step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim(s) does/do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the vehicle position estimation device”, “the first boundary-line calculation determinator”, “the second boundary-line calculation determinator”, “the traveling lane matcher”, and “the position estimator” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner additionally notes claims 2-11 depend from claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-11 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, in claim 3, the additional limitations of “wherein the first boundary-line calculation determinator determines that the vehicle has crossed the boundary line, when the first distance varies more than a predetermined crossing determination distance within a predetermined crossing determination time or when the position of the boundary line is switched between right and left with respect to the vehicle; and wherein the second boundary-line calculation determinator determines that the vehicle has crossed the boundary line, when the second distance varies more than the crossing determination distance within the crossing determination time or when the position of the boundary line is switched between right and left with respect to the vehicle” are further steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by a human using a pen and paper using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above. As a further example, in claim 5, the “wherein, after starting adjusting the distance for matching, the traveling lane matcher terminates said adjusting the distance after an elapse of a predetermined matching duration time” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As such, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
YANG (CN 112797998 A) regarding a system for realizing the lane level positioning of the vehicle.
JO et al. (US 20160159349 A1) regarding a system for estimating a driving lane of a vehicle.
YANG (US 20220111834 A1) regarding a system for controlling driving of a vehicle.
Ichinokawa (US 20170176598 A1) regarding a system for multipath error correction.
Kawasaki et al. (US 20160137202 A1) regarding a system for calculating a travel lane marking probability of each of travel lane marking candidates based on a calculation condition.
KUMANO et al. (US 20230086589 A1) regarding a system for estimating a self-position of a vehicle traveling on a road.
FUJII (US 20180297639 A1) regarding a system for supporting a steering operation for changing lanes.
DAHLBÄCK et al. (US 20220266825 A1) regarding a system for providing a road model of a portion of a surrounding environment of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-3151. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Anne M ANTONUCCI can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/K.S.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666