DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Amendment and Remarks filed on 10/27/2025. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant's arguments filed “In summary, the present claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter as 1) they do not recite any abstract idea as defined in the 2019 PEG, and 2) they are not "directed to" any judicial exception as they integrate the subject matter into a practical application. For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be reconsidered and withdrawn.” on 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (A), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes the limitation of “collect vehicle sensor data” is mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “collect vehicle sensor data” indicate pre-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. Furthermore, the claim limitation does not disclose any limitation indicating manipulating the data structure to output a modified computer data structure. In particular, the limitations of “map the frames”, “identify…a portion of the road graph”, “identify… a portion of the road graph beyond the reference baseline segment”, and “associate the vehicle sensor data captured at the frames with the respective nearest portion of the road graph” indicated mental processes without modified computer data structure.
(B) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 23-24, filed “As the references alone, or in combination, do not disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of independent claims 1, 11, and 17, it is believed that the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be withdrawn. Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, and 19 depend from claim 1, claim 12 depends from claim 11, and claim 17 depends from claim 16 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons above in support of independent claims 1, 11, and 16. Allowance of these claims is respectfully requested” on 10/27/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As to point (B), the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-12, 16, and 17 has been withdrawn.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis-Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to A system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-10 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis-Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for reminder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
collect vehicle sensor data, as frames of a vehicle trace, from a vehicle as it traverses a road;
map the frames to a respective nearest portion of a road graph for the road;
identify, as a reference baseline segment, a portion of the road graph for which time-sequential frames map to connected road graph nodes;
identify, as a non-baseline segment, a portion of the road graph beyond the reference baseline segment for which there is a mapping inconsistency; and
for the reference baseline segment, associate the vehicle sensor data captured at the frames with the respective nearest portion of the road graph.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a "mental process" and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation by a user or in the human mind. For example, “map the frames to a respective nearest portion of a road graph for the road” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining the nearest portion. Similarly, the limitation of " identify, as a reference baseline segment, a portion of the road graph for which time-sequential frames map to connected road graph nodes" in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining road graph. Furthermore, the limitation of “identify, as a non-baseline segment, a portion of the road graph beyond the reference baseline segment for which there is a mapping inconsistency” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining inconsistency. Lastly, the limitation of “for the reference baseline segment, associate the vehicle sensor data captured at the frames with the respective nearest portion of the road graph” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally as. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis-Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole, integrates the abstract into a partial application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
collect vehicle sensor data, as frames of a vehicle trace, from a vehicle as it traverses a road;
map the frames to a respective nearest portion of a road graph for the road;
identify, as a reference baseline segment, a portion of the road graph for which time-sequential frames map to connected road graph nodes;
identify, as a non-baseline segment, a portion of the road graph beyond the reference baseline segment for which there is a mapping inconsistency; and
for the reference baseline segment, associate the vehicle sensor data captured at the frames with the respective nearest portion of the road graph.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a processor; and a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, a processor recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In particular, a memory recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a memory performing a generic computer function of storing software) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the additional limitations of “collect vehicle sensor data, as frames of a vehicle trace, from a vehicle as it traverses a road”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “collect vehicle sensor data, as frames of a vehicle trace, from a vehicle as it traverses a road” indicate pre-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add no thing that is nor already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2 106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis-Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor; and a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, regarding the additional limitation of “collect vehicle sensor data, as frames of a vehicle trace, from a vehicle as it traverses a road”, the examiner submits that the limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea as previously discussed.
Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “associate the non-baseline segment to the frames of the vehicle trace” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites “associate the non-baseline segment” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “map frames”, “identify an inconsistent portion”, “associate vehicle sensor data” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “identify the mapping inconsistency” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “identify an out-of-sequence mapping” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites “identify a frame” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “identify the mapping inconsistency” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “map the frames” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “associate at least one of elevation data for the vehicle or directionality data” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As per claim 11-15, it recites A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions having limitations similar to those of claim 1-4, 6-7 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 16-20, it recites A method having limitations similar to those of claim 1-4, 6 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. In particular, the limitations of “map the frames to a respective nearest portion of a road graph for the road;
identify, as a reference baseline segment, a portion of the road graph for which time-sequential frames map to connected road graph nodes;
identify, as a non-baseline segment, a portion of the road graph beyond the reference baseline segment for which there is a mapping inconsistency; and
for the reference baseline segment, associate the vehicle sensor data captured at the frames with the respective nearest portion of the road graph.” were not uncovered in the prior art teachings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Averilla (US20200132477A1) disclosed automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle. The techniques include receiving, using one or more processors of a vehicle located within an environment, a map of the environment. One or more sensors of the vehicle receive sensor data and semantic data. The sensor data includes a plurality of features of the environment. From the sensor data, a geometric model is generated of a feature of the plurality of features. The generating includes associating the feature with a drivable area within the environment. A drivable segment is extracted from the drivable area. The drivable segment is segregated into a plurality of geometric blocks. Each geometric block corresponds to a characteristic of the drivable area and the geometric model of the feature includes the plurality of geometric blocks. The geometric model is annotated using the semantic data. The annotated geometric model is embedded within the map..
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 WENYUAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
9/18/26
Prosecution Insights