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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-10 and 19-28 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 19 and 20 have been amended; and claims 11-18 have been canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10, 19, and 20 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-18 have been withdrawn from further consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/5/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. 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 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 1-10 and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-10 recite a method, therefore claims 1-10 are a process, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 19-28 recite a system/processor, therefore claims 19-28 are a machine, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis, 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 the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 21 recites:
A system comprising:
one or more processors to:
determine a first location associated with a traffic object and a second location associated with a traffic pole;
determine, based at least on the first location and the second location, that the traffic object is located within a threshold distance to the traffic pole;
determine, based at least on the traffic object being located within the threshold distance to the traffic pole, that the traffic object is associated with the traffic pole; and
update map data to indicate that the traffic object is associated with the traffic pole.
These limitations, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as certain mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as in the mind (or on paper). For example, “determine…,” “determine…,” “determine…, and “update map data” encompass a human mentally viewing a location of a traffic object, a location of a traffic pole being within a distance of the traffic object, and updating a mental map based on the positions. Thus, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims of similar scope of claim 21 also recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 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 practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
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:
one or more processors to:
determine a first location associated with a traffic object and a second location associated with a traffic pole;
determine, based at least on the first location and the second location, that the traffic object is located within a threshold distance to the traffic pole;
determine, based at least on the traffic object being located within the threshold distance to the traffic pole, that the traffic object is associated with the traffic pole; and
update map data to indicate that the traffic object is associated with the traffic pole.
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.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not 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 or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for viewing a location of a traffic object, a location of a traffic pole being within a distance of the traffic object, and updating a mental map based on the positions, 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§ 2106.05).
Specifically, the additional elements of a processor is mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by using a general processor and computer system to perform the process. In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do 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 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 21 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 element of a processor determining a location of a traffic object, a location of a traffic pole being within a distance of the traffic object, and updating a mental map based on the positions amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions cannot provide an inventive concept.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 19, and 21 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-10, 20, and 22-28 have been given the full two-part analysis and determined to specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1, 19, and 21, and thus are directed to an abstract idea, do not recite additional limitations that integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to “significantly more” for similar reasons.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 19-23, 25, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0404841 to Das et al.
Regarding claims 1, and 21, Das et al. discloses:
A method comprising:
determining a first location associated with a traffic object and a second location associated with a traffic pole; determining, based at least on the first location and the second location, that the traffic object is located within a threshold distance to the traffic pole; determining, based at least on the traffic object being located within the threshold distance to the traffic pole, that the traffic object is associated with the traffic pole (Figure 1C, Ref. No. 105 traffic sign ; Figure 1C, traffic pole depicted but not indicated; see also ¶ [0030] describing the traffic sign being affixed to the traffic pole; ¶ [0073] describing determining whether the traffic object is semantically related to other traffic objects based on a spatial proximity and relative position of the two objects; ¶ [0075] describing determining whether the detected traffic object is associated with the traffic pole based on being within a threshold distance of the traffic pole); and
updating map data to indicate that the traffic object is associated with the traffic pole (¶ [0090] describing that after the detected traffic object has been determined to be associated with the traffic pole, updating the map data information).
Regarding claim 21, Das et al. further discloses use of one or more processors (¶ [0011]).
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Das et al. discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 21. Das et al. further discloses:
determining a third location associated with a second traffic object (Figure 3A, Ref. No. 304);
determining, based at least on the third location and at least one of the first location or the second location, that the second traffic object is also associated with the traffic pole; and updating the map data to indicate that the second traffic object is also associated with the traffic pole (¶¶ [0104] – [0106] describing determining whether traffic object 304 that is located at a third position is semantically related to traffic sign 305 located at a second position, which is affixed to the traffic pole, by being within a distance threshold and/or based on other information relating to the traffic sign, and then updating the map data once it has been determined that the second are semantically related).
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Das et al. discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 22. Das et al. further discloses:
wherein the determining that the second traffic object is also associated with the traffic pole comprises:
determining, based at least on the third location and the second location, that the second traffic object is also located within the threshold distance to the traffic pole; and determining, based at least on the second traffic object being located within the threshold distance to the traffic pole, that the second traffic object is associated with the traffic pole (¶¶ [0075], [0104] – [106] describing that the determination of whether the first and second traffic objects are associated with the traffic pole comprises determining a semantic relationship of both the first and second traffic objects being within a threshold distance of the traffic pole).
Regarding claims 5 and 25, Das et al. discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 21. Das et al. further discloses:
further comprising one of:
determining that the traffic object includes a direct connection with the traffic pole based at least on the threshold distance including a first distance (¶ [0030] describing the traffic sign being affixed to the traffic pole, i.e. a direct connection); or
determining that the traffic object includes an indirect connection with the traffic pole based at least on the threshold distance including a second distance that is larger than the first distance (Claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claims 6 and 26, Das et al. discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 21. Das et al. further discloses:
determining one or more dimensions associated with a second traffic object; and
determining, based at least on the one or more dimensions and the second location, that the second traffic object includes a direct connection with the traffic pole (Figures 1A-3C; ¶ [0030] describing determining that the second traffic object 103 is directly connected to the traffic pole based on its position and dimensions associated with the traffic object, the dimensions being that it is determined to have five different signal faces in a vertical configuration).
Regarding claim 8, Das et al. discloses all the limitations of claims 1. Das et al. further discloses:
further comprising:
determining, based at least on the first location and the second location, a first distance between the traffic object and the traffic pole (¶ [0030] the traffic object is affixed to the traffic pole, which determines the first distance to be zero);
determining, based at least on the first distance, a second distance associated with an extender of the traffic pole; and updating the map data to indicate the second distance associated with the extender of the traffic pole (¶¶ [0104] – [0106] describing determining, based on the first distance between the traffic object and the traffic pole, a semantic relationship between the traffic object and a second traffic object associated with an extender of the traffic pole, which is a second distance; see also Figure 3A depicting the extender of the traffic pole).
Regarding claim 9, Das et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Das et al. further discloses:
further comprising:
generating, based at least on the first location and the second location, a connection between the traffic object and one of the traffic pole or an extender of the traffic pole; and updating the map data to indicate the connection between the traffic object and the one of the traffic pole or the extender of the traffic pole (¶¶ ¶ [0090], [0104] – [0106] describing determining, based on the first distance between the traffic object and the traffic pole, a semantic relationship between the traffic object and a second traffic object associated with an extender of the traffic pole, which is a second distance, and updating the map to indicate the connection between the traffic object and the traffic pole; see also Figure 3A depicting the extender of the traffic pole).
Regarding claim 10, Das et al. discloses all the limitations of claims 1. Das et al. further discloses:
wherein the determining the first location associated with the traffic object and the second location associated with the traffic pole is based at least on the map data (¶¶ [0025] – [0030] describing how the real-world map is used in the description, including the detection of the first traffic object and the traffic pole).
Regarding claim 19, Das et al. discloses:
A processor comprising:
one or more processing units to update map data to indicate that a traffic object is associated with a traffic structure, wherein the traffic object is determined to be associated with the traffic structure based at least on a first location associated with the traffic object as represented by the map data being within a threshold distance to a second location associated with the traffic structure as represented by the map data (Figure 1C, Ref. No. 105 traffic sign ; Figure 1C, traffic pole depicted but not indicated; see also ¶ [0030] describing the traffic sign being affixed to the traffic pole; ¶ [0073] describing determining whether the traffic object is semantically related to other traffic objects based on a spatial proximity and relative position of the two objects; ¶ [0075] describing determining whether the detected traffic object is associated with the traffic pole based on being within a threshold distance of the traffic pole; ¶ [0090] describing that after the detected traffic object has been determined to be associated with the traffic pole, updating the map data information).
Regarding claims 20 and 28, Das et al. discloses all the limitations of claims 19 and 21. Das et al. further discloses:
wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (¶ [0131] vehicle control system for autonomous vehicle);
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (¶ [0131] sensor system for autonomous vehicle);
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system for performing generative AI operations;
a system for performing operations using a large language model (¶ [0073] machine learning models);
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (¶ [0123] cloud based computing system).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 7, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 24, Das et al. discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 22.
Das et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the determining that the second traffic object is also associated with the traffic pole comprises determining, based at least on the third location and the second location, that the second traffic object is located outside of the threshold distance to the traffic pole; determining, based at least on the third location and the first location, that the second traffic object is located within a second threshold distance to the traffic object; and determining, based at least on the second traffic object being located within the second threshold distance to the traffic object, that the second traffic object is also associated with the traffic pole.
However, Das et al. does teach determining whether stationary elements, such as traffic signs and traffic lights, have semantic relationships with each other based on whether the traffic objects are within a threshold distance from the traffic light (¶¶ [0004] describing determining whether the traffic object is within a threshold distance of the traffic light; ¶ [0075] describing same).
Therefore, a person having a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Das et al.’s invention to incorporate a second threshold distance within which a traffic object is determined to have a semantic relationship with so as to be associated with the traffic pole based on Das et al.’s teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in is determining whether unknown, or unmapped, traffic objects have semantic relationships with other known traffic objects to determine whether the map data should be updated to reflect to new traffic object (Das et al. ¶¶ [0092], [0093]).
Regarding claims 7 and 27, Das et al. discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 21. Das et al. further discloses:
wherein the traffic object is a traffic signal, and wherein the method further comprises:
determining that a traffic sign is located within a second threshold distance to at least one of the traffic signal or the traffic pole; determining, based at least on the traffic sign being located within the second threshold distance to the at least one of the traffic signal or the traffic pole, that the traffic sign is associated with the traffic pole; and updating the map data to indicate that the traffic sign is associated with the traffic pole (¶¶ [0104] – [0106] describing determining whether traffic object 304 that is located at a third position is semantically related to traffic sign 305 located at a second position, which is affixed to the traffic pole, by being within a distance threshold and/or based on other information relating to the traffic sign, and then updating the map data once it has been determined that the second are semantically related).
Das et al. does not expressly disclose the scenario in which the traffic object is a traffic signal. However, Das et al. does teach determining various relationships between traffic signs and traffic signals associated with a traffic pole (See Figures 3A and 3B depicting determining whether the unknown traffic object is semantically associated with a known traffic object, such as a traffic sign; see also ¶¶ [0104] – [0106] describing determining whether traffic object 304 that is located at a third position is semantically related to traffic sign 305 located at a second position, which is affixed to the traffic pole, by being within a distance threshold and/or based on other information relating to the traffic sign, and then updating the map data once it has been determined that the second are semantically related; ¶¶ [0112] – [0114] describing the same with respect to Figure 3B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Das et al.’s invention to incorporate the various scenarios taught where the traffic signals and traffic signs can be placed at different locations on the traffic pole, including substituting the traffic sign shown in Figure 3A for a traffic sign while still performing the semantic relationship analysis based on the teachings of Das et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in is determining whether unknown, or unmapped, traffic objects have semantic relationships with other known traffic objects to determine whether the map data should be updated to reflect to new traffic object (Das et al. ¶¶ [0092], [0093]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0154127 to Martin-Bragado teaches detecting a traffic object and determining its distance from a traffic pole (¶ [0060]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0189054 to Kaiser et al. teaches determining that traffic data and a traffic pole is within a threshold distance of each other (¶ [0068]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0049964 to Jang et al. teaches determining a relative distance between a traffic sign and a traffic pole based on the heigh of each object (¶¶ [0095] – [0098]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm ET.
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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/19/26