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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 10/30/2023 has been acknowledged
Status of Application
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 08/11/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 12 recite “size or orientation the vehicle-centric position” but it should read as “size or orientation of the vehicle-centric position”. Additionally, claim 14 uses the term “refined”, which is inconsistent with other previous and following claims using “revised”. The office acknowledges that refined could be correct but that the second “revised” in claim 3 should say refined. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-22 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
Claim 1 is directed to a process (method). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 12 is directed to a machine (system). Therefore, claim 11 is 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.
Claims 1 and 12 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 12 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 12 recites: A system for curating map data of a map using sensor data collected from a vehicle along a trajectory of the vehicle comprising:
one or more processors configured to perform operations of:
detecting at least one change in a first feature of the map at a determined position along the trajectory of the vehicle based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle;
scanning sensor data from the one or more sensors of the vehicle along the trajectory of the vehicle to identify sensor data representing one or more existing map features on the map;
determining a vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features based on the sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle;
comparing the determined vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features to a map-based position of their corresponding one or more existing map features and determining a difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features;
determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features; and
applying the transformation to the vehicle-centric position of the first feature and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature; and
based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “detecting, determining, comparing, and applying” steps encompass a user to analyze data and make a decision. Detecting a change of a map is something that can be done mentally. Determining position of a map feature and determining a transformation is also something that can be done mentally and/or with pen and paper. Comparing two positions is something and determining a difference is something that can be done mentally and/or with pen and paper. Applying data to other data to obtain a position is something that can be done mentally. 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 practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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”):
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 “one or more processors configured to perform operations of”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processor(s)” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the detecting, determining, and comparing steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the processor(s) is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a processor(s).
In addition to that, the examiner submits that scanning sensor data from the one or more sensors of the vehicle along the trajectory of the vehicle to identify sensor data representing one or more existing map features on a map, is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a sensor to help perform the process. In particular, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, the examiner submits that executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature is insignificant extra-solution activities. Updating a trajectory path based on the transformation amounts to mere data transfer, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 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 of a processor 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 § 2106.05). 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 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 12 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 the system, the processor amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of scanning sensor data from the one or more sensors of the vehicle along the trajectory of the vehicle to identify sensor data representing one or more existing map features on a map and executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of scanning sensor data from the one or more sensors of the vehicle along the trajectory of the vehicle to identify sensor data representing one or more existing map features on a map is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional vehicle sensors. 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 collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Further Claim 1 is not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-11 and 13-22 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1 and 12.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to an improvement, a non-generic device, and/or controlling a vehicle with the map. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-11346682 to Fasola et al (“Fasola”) in view of US-20190317239-A1 to Olsson et al (“Olsson”), further in view of US-20170010618-A1 to Shashua et. al. (“Shashua”).
Regarding claim 1, Fasola teaches a method for curating map data of a map using sensor data collected from a vehicle along a trajectory of the vehicle, comprising (Fasola Claim 1):
detecting at least one change in a first feature of the map at a determined position along the trajectory of the vehicle based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle (Fasola Fig. 5 ref 502);
scanning sensor data from the one or more sensors of the vehicle along the trajectory of the vehicle to identify sensor data representing one or more existing map features on the map (Fasola col 11 lines 22-24);
determining a vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features based on the sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle (Fasola Fig. 4B);
comparing the determined vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features to a map-based position of their corresponding one or more existing map features and determining a difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features (Fasola Fig. 5 ref 504 & 506);
Fasola does not teach determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature. However, Olsson teaches determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions (Olson [0076] “The image tiles may be positioned satellite or aerial photographs or other images stitched together representing the Earth's surface”) of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 104, 105, & 107 and Figs. 1B-1D) and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 105 & 107, Fig. 2A ref 206 & 208 and Fig. 3A ref 302 & 304).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fasola to incorporate the teachings of Olsson such that the method includes determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Fasola as modified by Olsson does not teach that based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle. However, Shashua teaches that based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle (Shashua [0465] “Landmarks identified by vehicles 1205-1225 while the vehicles travel along road segment 1200 may be recorded in association with the target trajectory. The data of the target trajectories and landmarks may be continuously or periodically updated with new data received from other vehicles in subsequent drives.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Shashua to Fasola as modified by Olsson such that based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle. Doing so would allow for the server to identify model changes, such as constructions, detours, new signs, removal of signs, etc. and update the model for providing autonomous navigation (Shashua [0435]).
Regarding claim 2, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fasola further discloses that applying the transformation aligns positions of the vehicle along the trajectory (Fasola col 11 lines 62-64). Olsson further discloses that applying the transformation aligns the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing features with the map (Olsson Fig. 3A ref 302).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Olsson to Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua such that applying the transformation aligns the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing features with the map. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Fasola as modified by Olsson teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Olsson further discloses that applying the transformation to the determined position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature comprises applying the transformation to the determined vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature in the map (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 105 & 107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Olsson to Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua such that applying the transformation to the determined position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature comprises applying the transformation to the determined vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature in the map. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Fasola further discloses that applying the transformation to the vehicle- centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature comprises determining, based on sensor data, whether at least one of a position, orientation, or size of the first feature has changed (Fasola col 7 lines 43-47). Olsson further discloses that upon detecting a change in at least one of a position, orientation, and size of the first feature, applying the transformation to the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain at least one of a revised position, orientation, and size of the first feature (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 105 & 107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Olsson to Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua such that upon detecting a change in at least one of a position, orientation, and size of the first feature, applying the transformation to the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain at one of a revised position, orientation, and size of the first feature. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Olsson further discloses updating at least one of the position, orientation and size of the first feature on the map to reflect the change (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 105 & 107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Olsson to Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua such that the method updates at least one of the position, orientation and size of the first feature on the map to reflect the change. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Regarding claim 6, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Olsson further discloses that determining a transformation, comprises determining a position offset between the vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features and the map-based position of the one or more existing map features (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Olsson to Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua such that determining a transformation, comprises determining a position offset between the vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features and the map-based position of the one or more existing map features. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fasola further discloses comparing the first feature to existing features on the map to determine if the first feature is a new feature (Fasola Fig. 5 ref 516, 520, and col 13 lines 45-49).
Regarding claim 8, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7. Fasola further discloses updating the map to include the new feature at the revised position (Fasola Fig. 5 ref 522).
Regarding claim 9, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fasola further discloses comparing a set of one or more vehicle-centric features to existing features on the map to determine if the first feature has been removed from along the trajectory and upon detection of removal of the first feature, updating the map to reflect removal of the feature (Fasola col 7 lines 27-47 and col 12 lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 10, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9. Fasola further discloses updating the map to remove the first feature from the map (Fasola col 7 lines 27-47 and col 12 lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 11, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fasola further discloses that the first feature comprises at least one of a road sign and lane markings (Fasola col 6 lines 38-40).
Regarding claim 12, Fasola teaches a system for curating map data of a map using sensor data collected from a vehicle along a trajectory of the vehicle, comprising (Fasola Claim 8):
one or more processors configured to perform operations of (Fasola col 14 lines 17-34):
detecting at least one change in a first feature of the map at a determined position along the trajectory of the vehicle based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle (Fasola Fig. 5 ref 502);
scanning sensor data from the one or more sensors of the vehicle along the trajectory of the vehicle to identify sensor data representing one or more existing map features on the map (Fasola col 11 lines 22-24);
determining a vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features based on the sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle (Fasola Fig. 4B);
comparing the determined vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features to a map-based position of their corresponding one or more existing map features and determining a difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features (Fasola Fig. 5 ref 504 & 506);
Fasola does not teach determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features and applying the transformation to the vehicle-centric position of the first feature and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature. However, Olsson teaches determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions (Olson [0076] “The image tiles may be positioned satellite or aerial photographs or other images stitched together representing the Earth's surface”) of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 104, 105, & 107 and Figs. 1B-1D) and applying the transformation to the vehicle-centric position of the first feature and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 105 & 107, Fig. 2A ref 206 & 208 and Fig. 3A ref 302 & 304).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fasola to incorporate the teachings of Olsson such that the method includes determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Fasola as modified by Olsson does not teach that based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle. However, Shashua teaches that based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle (Shashua [0465] “Landmarks identified by vehicles 1205-1225 while the vehicles travel along road segment 1200 may be recorded in association with the target trajectory. The data of the target trajectories and landmarks may be continuously or periodically updated with new data received from other vehicles in subsequent drives.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Shashua to Fasola as modified by Olsson such that based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle. Doing so would allow for the server to identify model changes, such as constructions, detours, new signs, removal of signs, etc. and update the model for providing autonomous navigation (Shashua [0435]).
Regarding claim 13, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Claim 13 also recites analogous limitations to claim 2, which was disclosed by Fasola as modified by Olsson shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 14, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13. Claim 14 also recites analogous limitations to claim 3, which was disclosed by Olsson shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 15, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13. Claim 15 also recites analogous limitations to claim 4, which was disclosed by Fasola as modified by Olsson shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 16, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Claim 16 also recites analogous limitations to claim 5, which was disclosed by Olsson shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 17, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Claim 17 also recites analogous limitations to claim 6, which was disclosed by Olsson shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 18, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Claim 18 also recites analogous limitations to claim 7, which was disclosed by Fasola shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 18. Claim 19 also recites analogous limitations to claim 8, which was disclosed by Fasola shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Claim 20 also recites analogous limitations to claim 9, which was disclosed by Fasola shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 21, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 20. Claim 21 also recites analogous limitations to claim 10, which was disclosed by Fasola shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 22, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Claim 22 also recites analogous limitations to claim 11, which was disclosed by Fasola shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 08/11/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Applicant remarks that are relevant:
Step 2A – Prong One
Applicant respectfully asserts that none of these concepts are included in the claims. Applicant then lists the steps that were marked as a mental process by the office and states that individually or as a whole cannot be “performed entirely in a human’s mind”.
These claim elements require full or blended automated control of a vehicle to execute the system in claim 1. Particularly, independent claim 1 recites "executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle." The system in claim 1 directly affects control of the vehicle by executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle that affects the movement and physical operation of the vehicle. Accordingly, the system in claim 1 cannot be executed absent a computing environment, as control of the vehicle is directly affected. A human mind would be unable to execute a trajectory for the vehicle absent implementation into a computing environment.
In this case, the recited steps involve processing sensor data, determining vehicle- centric coordinates, aligning sensed and mapped data, determining a transformation based on sensed data, and transforming the electronic map by applying actions that are beyond human mental capacity and inherently require specialized computer systems and sensors. Further, the outcome-transforming the map-is a physical, real-world result that cannot occur in the mind. As explained in USPTO Example 39 (2019 PEG), claims that apply mathematical or data processing steps to sensor data for the real-time movement/control of physical devices are not mental processes. The claim discussed in Example 39 also involves transformations to the data (image data in the example) to create a modified data set. The USPTO states that there is no judicial exception recited in Example 39 because "the steps are not practically performed in the human mind." The currently presented claims are similar to the claim recited in Example 39, as the claimed method must be performed at a speed that far exceeds human capabilities in order to properly and safely control the vehicle. This further supports that it cannot be practically performed in the human mind and cannot be characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106. The collection and processing of sensor data from a moving vehicle, detection of feature changes, computation of precise positional transformations, and live map updating all demand rapid data acquisition and computation and computational accuracy. For motor vehicles-especially autonomous or semi-autonomous systems-these steps may be performed continuously and instantaneously while the vehicle travels along its path, responding to changes in the surrounding environment. A human operator could neither capture the volume and complexity of sensor data involved, nor process and reconcile that information with stored map data, compute precise transformations, and update a vehicle's trajectory-all while the vehicle is in motion. Thus, Applicant respectfully asserts that the Section 101 rejections should be withdrawn.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
Applicant argues that the limitations recite a practical application of the alleged abstract ideas.
Applicant respectfully asserts that these features recite a practical application of the alleged abstract idea(s). For example, as recited in the specification, maps "need to be updated to reflect changes in the environment, such as new road construction, changes in traffic patterns, new or moved features (e.g., lane markings, road signs, etc.) and temporary road closures." Specification at [0005]. The system recited in the claims leverages "information obtained from vehicle sensors to detect new map features such as, for example, new lane markings, road signs, traffic signals, and so on" and is able to detect unmapped features. Id. at [0006]. This system improves conventional mapping systems by refining object positions, identifying new objects, and transforming map positions based on the received data. Applicant respectfully asserts that this improved system that ultimately "transforms the map" is a "practical application" that further removes the Applicant's claims from a non-abstract computing environment under at least Step 2A (Prong 2).
Moreover, rather, they are rooted in technological processes unique to vehicles and sensor-based maps the claims recite the detection of a change in a map feature based on actual sensor data, identification and comparison of sensed and mapped feature positions, computation and application of a transformation for adjusting the position/size/orientation of features, and transformation of the map itself to result in a more accurate representation of the map data. These steps, in the context of vehicle navigation, provide a concrete technical improvement: they enable near real-time map updates and more accurate positioning of map features relative to the vehicle for autonomous or semi-autonomous navigation.
Step 2B:
Applicant argues that claims expressly provide improvements to technology by providing a distinct and unconventional combination of features which realizes improvements over well-known systems and methods.
Office response:
Step 2A Prong One
detecting is an observation, scanning is an observation, determining is a judgement and/or evaluation, comparing is a judgment and/or evaluation, applying is an evaluation. While executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle is not a mental process, it is mere data transfer that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
"executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle." Does not necessarily mean that the vehicle is being controlled to move on that updated trajectory, as executing is a very broad term. Rather, it can simply be updating the trajectory path of the vehicle, which is not the same as the vehicle using the updated trajectory to move. This was also stated in the interview dated August 18, 2025, that claim 1 needs to more clearly recite that the vehicle is being controlled based on the updated trajectory in order to overcome.
Like stated prior, the recited steps do not require specialized computer systems and specialized sensors, and can all be done mentally and/or with pen and paper. In regards to the outcome, the office respectfully disagrees that transforming the map can not be done mentally and with pen and paper. The office acknowledges Example 39, but asserts that digital facial imaging is different from map data, as a map can be created from pen and paper. Therefore, it can be practically performed in the human mind. The claimed method does not state that it needs to be performed at a speed that far exceeds human capabilities, and there is no vehicle control in the claims to begin with. Processing data, detecting changes, computing transformations (numbers), and updating data are all mental processes. With no restriction on the speed of the vehicle and volume of the data involved in the claims, it is not fact that a human operator could perform these mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
Scanning sensor data is a mere form of data gathering. Executing an updated trajectory for the vehicle is a mere form of data transfer.
Updating stored information is simply just information processing, not a technological improvement. It is only improving the abstract idea of information, not computer functionality. Like stated prior, receiving sensor data and updating data is data gathering followed by abstract analysis. Additionally, based on the prior art mapping, it is not an improvement to conventional systems as the limitations are disclosed in the prior art.
Receiving sensor data is data gathering while detecting a change in data, identifying and comparing features, and computing and applying transformations are all mental processes. It is not an improvement to the map system’s technological operations, it is merely an improvement to the informational content being used.
Step 2B:
The mapping of the prior art shows that the claims are not improvements over well-known systems and methods
Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments and the 101 rejections remain.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. However, even though applicant has amended the scope of the claims and the Office has provided new mapping of cited prior art below, the Office is still using most of the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks:
Olsson does not disclose "transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature." In particular, Olsson does not disclose transforming vehicle centric positions of map features. Instead, Olsson focuses on adjusting image tiles containing the geographic feature. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Olsson does not disclose "determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features" and "applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature" as recited in amended independent claim 1. For at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that Fasola in view of Olsson has not been shown to teach such subject matter as recited in independent claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is allowable over Fasola in view of Olsson and respectfully requests the withdrawal of the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Office Response:
The office respectfully disagrees and asserts that Olsson teaches transforming vehicle centric positions of map features. The map features are obtained from sensors of a satellite (Shown in Olsson [0076]), which is a vehicle centric position. Therefore, adjusting the image tiles based on position differences is “transforming at least one of the position size or orientation of the vehicle-centric position of the feature to obtain a revised position”. Adjusting the image tiles to obtain an updated geographic feature is transforming the feature. Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666