DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1, filed 0, with respect to the rejections of have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 11 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 02 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
The amendments to the claims overcome the new matter rejection under 112(a).
It is not possible for a human mind to mentally compare magnitude differences while continually updating segments based on data.
The claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer system in the specific field of real-time autonomous vehicle perception and operation.
The admission of allowable subject matter indicates that the features are not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Regarding argument A: The sections of the specification cited as providing support for the claim pertain towards a vehicle providing an indication of a lane change [0055] or a command module evaluating whether a lane change has occurred [0053]. These are actions performed by a vehicle control system, rather than the action of updating being performed on the vehicle control system.
Regarding argument B: A person possessing ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the human mind is capable of comparing data regarding two distance measurements to determine if they match a similarity criterion. The construction of a time series graph itself is a means by which a computer implements this comparison.
Regarding argument C: The claims are directed towards improvement of a particular abstract process which can be performed by a computer, rather than towards improvement of the computer itself.
Regarding argument D: The allowable subject matter in the claims is part of the abstract idea employed in the claim, rather than the additional elements of the claim. The additional elements of a processor, a memory, and a vehicle control system are all well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In light of the amendments to the claims, further rejections are additionally made under 112(a) and 112(b), as discussed below.
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 1-20 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. Claims 1, 8, and 14 recite in part a limitation of “update the vehicle when a lane change has occurred”; paragraph [0035] discloses updating the frame graph and paragraph [0069] recites updating a static obstacle map, however, the specification does not provide support for updating the vehicle. Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 are dependent on claims 1, 8, and 14, and are thus rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-20 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. Claims 1, 8, and 14 recite a limitation of “updat[ing] the vehicle control system”; however, it is unclear what is meant by this step. In light of paragraph [0034] and [0037], the limitation is interpreted as referring to determining that the vehicle has changed lanes and updating the vehicle position data to reflect this change.
Furthermore, claims 1, 8, and 14 recite the limitation “the vehicle control system”; however, there is no antecedent support for this limitation.
Additionally, claims 3, 10, and 16 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. 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 1-20 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
update the vehicle control system 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 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 18-20: 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
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