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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8 and 9, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) and the corresponding rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 05/28/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
Claims 3, 10, and 16 do not require simultaneous satisfaction of similarity and dissimilarity criteria, which instead refer to two different detections.
The similarity criterion is not applied to arbitrary distance values, but rather to distances in the magnitude of changes that were generated after the system has maintained a frame graph over time, which a person of ordinary skill could not perform mentally.
The amended claims recite a specific non-conventional process of maintaining a frame graph, which improves the functioning of a lane-detection system, rather than merely applying an abstract process on generic computer hardware.
The limitations of “maintaining in a vehicle’s onboard systems a frame graph” and “internally designating within the vehicle’s onboard systems that a lane change has occurred” directly tie the process to the hardware and operation of a vehicle, which is a non-conventional tracking method and thus provides significantly more.
Regarding argument A: While the applicant argues that “a lane change” and “a split/merge lane change” are two separate detection events with two separate detection criteria, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a lane change would be inclusive of a split/merge lane change. That is, a split/merge lane change is a specific type of lane change, which thus would need to meet both the general lane change criterion and the specific split/merge lane change criterion. It remains unclear how both these criteria can be simultaneously met.
Regarding argument B: The recited frame graph consists of distances from both a left-hand lane boundary and a right-hand lane boundary at a given position, wherein the distances are determined using sensor data. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of performing such a process in the mind; for example, a vehicle occupant could make a note of sensor readings at each highway mile marker along a path (or, with sensor data including GPS data, such notes could be made at a higher frequency).
Regarding argument C: While the applicant asserts that the process of maintaining the frame graph and determining handed distances is non-conventional, such a process remains an abstract idea. The recited additional elements of a processor, a memory, and a vehicle’s onboard systems amount to no more than instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer (the processor and the memory) and generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use of vehicle control (the vehicle’s onboard systems).
Regarding argument D: While the applicant asserts that the process of maintaining the frame graph and determining handed distances is non-conventional, such a process remains an abstract idea. The recited additional elements of a processor and a memory communicably coupled to the processor are an arrangement which is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Furthermore, the recited additional element of “a vehicle’s onboard systems” merely receives an indication that a lane change has occurred; the process of sending a signal to the systems of a vehicle is additionally well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Therefore, the arrangement of additional elements fails to provide significantly more.
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.
Furthermore, claims 3, 10, and 16 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement. In claims 1, 8, and 14, upon which they depend, it is recited that a lane change has occurred when a first difference in magnitude between two left-handed changes and a second difference in magnitude between two right-handed changes satisfies a similarity criterion. Claims 3, 10, and 16 further recite that a particular type of lane change has occurred if a first difference in magnitude between two left-handed changes and a second difference in magnitude between two right-handed changes satisfies a dissimilarity criterion. Assuming that the first difference and second difference of both claims refers to the same first difference and second difference, the specification as originally filed does not provide support for a scenario in which the first difference and second difference simultaneously satisfy a similarity criterion and a dissimilarity criterion.
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 3, 10, and 16 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. The claims recite the limitations of “a first difference in magnitude between two left-handed changes and a second difference in magnitude between two right-handed changes”; it is not clear if these are meant to refer to the same first difference and second difference as those of claims 1, 8, and 14, upon which the claims depend.
Furthermore, in a scenario in which the first difference and second differences of the claims are identical, it is further unclear how the same two differences could simultaneously satisfy a similarity criterion and a dissimilarity criterion.
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, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a method. (Step 1: Yes.) System claim 1 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
maintain in real-time a frame graph based on sensor data of a vehicle, the frame graph incorporating a plurality of segments wherein each segment has a vehicle position entry, a left-handed distance entry, and a right-handed distance entry;
determine for each segment of the frame graph a vehicle position, a left-handed distance, and a right-handed distance based on a vehicle position indicator, a set of left lane boundary indicators, and a set of right lane boundary indicators obtained from vehicular data associated with the segment;
evaluate left-handed changes and right-handed changes in magnitude within left-handed distances and right-handed distances across multiple segments of the frame graph; and
internally designate within the vehicle’s onboard systems that a lane change has occurred when a first difference in magnitude between two left-handed distance changes and a second difference in magnitude between two right-handed changes satisfy a similarity criterion.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this system performs a process of determining a distance between a vehicle and a set of points, and updating a vehicle map based on changes in the distance when a lane change occurs. This process can be performed in the human mind; therefore, the claim falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include (1): Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3), Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim recites a processor and a memory; these are recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned above, the recitation of a generic processor and generic memory amounts to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, a process which is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more.) Therefore, claim 1 (and the similarly abstract claims 8 and 14) is not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 10, and 16 further define the abstract idea and are thus abstract for the same reasons. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 introduce a step of determining a sum of the differences and comparing the sum to a criterion. This step is a combination of a mathematical process (taking a sum) and a mental process (comparing the sum to a criterion), and thus abstract. No further elements are recited; therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 further specify the source of the data. However, this is merely the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 further define the abstract idea and are thus abstract for the same reasons. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 20 introduce a step of determining a lane type, and determining whether a condition has been satisfied based on said lane type. These actions can be performed in the human mind, and are thus abstract. No further elements are recited; therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 21-23 introduce a step of providing a sensory notification (e.g., haptic feedback or audio/visual alerts) regarding occurrence of a lane change. However, this is merely the insignificant post-solution activity of sending an alert; the use of haptic feedback, audio, or visual methods to perform such an activity is furthermore well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
[Examiner’s Note: Paragraph [0047] discloses controlling the vehicle to perform a maneuver to leave a detected lane splitting condition; said disclosed control of the vehicle would be sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101.]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-14, and 17-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3, 10, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14: The art of record fails to teach a similarity criterion between left-handed changes and right-handed changes. While Konishi et al. teaches determining the occurrence of a lane change based on a left-handed distance or a right-handed distance having a discontinuity, Konishi et al. does not teach a comparison of the left-handed distances and the right-handed distances.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16: The art of record fails to teach a dissimilarity criterion between left-handed changes and right-handed changes. While Konishi et al. teaches determining the occurrence of a lane change based on a left-handed distance or a right-handed distance having a discontinuity, Konishi et al. does not teach a comparison of the left-handed distances and the right-handed distances. Ishii teaches determining a lane change point for a diverging lane based on the width of the lane; however, Ishii does not teach determining the diverging lane based on a comparison of changes to the left-handed distances and the right-handed distances.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17: The claims are dependent on potentially allowable claims 3, 10, and 16, and would thus be potentially allowable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claims 5-7, 12, 13, and 18-23: The claims are dependent on potentially allowable claims 1, 8, and 14, and would thus be potentially allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights