DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/519,639 filed on November 26, 2025 in which claims 1 and 11 were amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 26, 2025 has been entered.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending, of which claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) and claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites a method including the step “updating preceding route information by replacing the preceding route information with the subsequent route information in response to a deviation between a predetermined travel route and the preceding route information and the travel route of the subsequent route information exceeding a predetermined threshold.” (Emphasis added). Because the claim does not require there to be a predetermined range of deviation between the information and movement, the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the route information to be updated based on actual information. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Heil (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/512,669), at 6; Ex parte Frost (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/785,052) at 7; Ex parte Dawson (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/103,472) at 6; and Ex parte Candelore (PTAB 2017) (App. S.N. 14/281,158) at 5 (supporting the interpretation that “in response to” limitations are conditional).
Claim 2 includes the limitation “the location is generated to minimize a spaced amount in a relative displacement information.” (Emphasis added). This appears to recite the intended use of the generation. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim Interpretation—35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “communication unit” in claim 11.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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)(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 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Egbert et al., US Patent 12,162,500 (hereinafter Egbert).
Regarding claim 1, Egbert discloses a method for constructing an autonomous driving route based on sensor perceived information, the method comprising “obtaining a travel route of a target object by tracking a moving object and at least one of target object among neighboring dynamic objects around the moving object, wherein the travel route of the target object is obtained based on perception information obtained by the moving object with an observation sensor and a positioning sensor” (Egbert col. 6, l. 56-col. 7, l. 40) by describing the use of perception information from observation and position sensors to detect current trajectory (i.e., a travel route) of the vehicle and dynamic objects such as other vehicles. Additionally, Egbert discloses “generating a predicted route on which a movement is estimated from the travel route, based on the travel route of the target object” (Egbert col. 7, ll. 11-40) by generating a predicted trajectory of the vehicle (i.e., the target object). Further, Egbert discloses “generating subsequent route information, for the target object, including the travel route of the target object travelling along the predicted route” (Egbert col. 22, ll. 41-45) by determining a plurality of actions the vehicle (i.e., the target object) may take, which are each correlated to a respective trajectory such as required to change lanes. Moreover, Egbert discloses “updating preceding route information by replacing the preceding route information with the subsequent route information in response to a deviation between a predetermined travel route and the preceding route information and the travel route of the subsequent route information exceeding a predetermined threshold” (Egbert col. 22, ll. 27-63) where action component 446 updates the route information with the subsequent route information, such as “changing lanes” (i.e., the subsequent action) when the current action would result in an intersection between the vehicle and the object determined from the amount of overlap between the buffer region of the vehicle and the object. The buffer zone represents the amount of deviation from a predicted trajectory (Egbert col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 35) meaning that if the vehicle’s buffer zone intersects the object, the maximum allowable amount of deviation from a predicted trajectory has been exceeded. Likewise, Egbert discloses “wherein the preceding route information is provided from a map information for autonomous driving” (Egbert col. 18, ll. 14-40) where the trajectories may be determined based on map data. Finally, Egbert discloses “updating the map information based on the subsequent route information which is the updated preceding route information” (Egbert col. 3, ll. 31-35) by selecting the trajectory that does not result in a collision.
Regarding claim 2, Egbert discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Egbert discloses “wherein the obtaining of the travel route includes tracking the target object by using a trajectory based on positioning information of the target object estimated from the positioning sensor and an optimal location of the target object” (Egbert col. 8, ll. 3-32) by determining the vehicle information using GPS (i.e., positioning) sensors of the vehicle. Further, Egbert discloses “wherein the perception information is collected as multiple pieces of perception information” (Egbert col. 8, ll. 3-32) by giving examples of multiple sources (i.e., pieces) for the sensor (i.e., perception) information. Moreover, Egbert discloses “wherein the perception information has multiple views in a time series” (Egbert col. 8, l. 65-col. 9, l. 22) by giving an example of the sensor data being over a time series. Likewise, Egbert discloses “features are extracted from each of the multiple pieces of the perception information” (Egbert col. 17, ll. 11-39) where the perception component indicates (i.e., extracts) features associated with the data. Finally, Egbert discloses “wherein the location is generated to minimize a spaced amount in a relative displacement information, and wherein relative displacement information between the observation sensor and the features is generated by matching between the features” (Egbert col. 2, ll. 25-54) by generating the buffer region based on differences (i.e., displacement information) between “the historical data, sensor data, vehicle state data, etc.”
Regarding claim 3, Egbert discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Egbert discloses “wherein the extraction of the features and the matching between the features are performed by referring to travel information and observation state information of the moving object” (Egbert col. 2, ll. 25-54) by generating the buffer region based on differences (i.e., displacement information) between “the historical data, sensor data, vehicle state data, etc.” Further, Egbert discloses “the observation state information represents a state in which the observation sensor of the moving object perceives the target object” (Egbert col. 8, ll. 3-32) by determining the vehicle information using GPS (i.e., positioning) sensors of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, Egbert discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Egbert discloses “further comprising providing the location of the target object to the positioning information and the map information” (Egbert col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 35) where the sensor data, which includes the GPS data, is provided to the model.
Regarding claim 5, Egbert discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Egbert discloses “wherein the generating of the predicted route includes generating the predicted route based on displacement information of the target object (Egbert col. 2, ll. 25-54), speed information of the target object (Egbert col. 3, l. 66-col. 4, l. 9), the travel route (Egbert col. 3, l. 66-col. 4, l. 9), environment information of a driving route of the target object (Egbert col. 4, ll. 10-29), information on a regulation applied to the driving route (Egbert col. 4, ll. 10-29), travel pattern information (Egbert col. 20, ll. 4-20), and cumulative route information of a route (Egbert col. 20, ll. 4-20).”
Regarding claim 7, Egbert discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Egbert discloses “wherein the generating of the subsequent route information includes determining a single piece of object travel information, which is derived through matching for multiple pieces of object travel information of the target object, as the subsequent route information” (Egbert col. 3, l. 66-col. 4, l. 9) by associating multiple pieces of travel information to generate safety information. Further, Egbert discloses “the multiple pieces of the object travel information are transmitted from each of a plurality of moving objects that generate a travel route and a predicted route of the target object.” (Egbert col. 8, ll. 17-19).
Regarding claim 8, Egbert discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Egbert discloses “wherein the matching for the multiple pieces of the object travel information includes performing geometrical matching between the object travel information” (Egbert col. 21, ll. 47-60) by using lines (i.e., geometric information) to match the collision zone to the environment. Further, Egbert discloses “clustering object travel information based on statistical information according to a weight of the object travel information” (Egbert col. 23, l. 42-col. 24, l. 13; col. 26, ll. 61-67) by describing several clustering algorithms and giving a later example of the weights being used. Finally, Egbert discloses “based on a route model based on the clustered object travel information, generating and employing the single piece of the object travel information as the subsequent route information” (Egbert col. 3, l. 66-col. 4, l. 9) where the data is generated based on any of the disclosed methods.
Regarding claim 9, Egbert discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Egbert discloses “wherein updating the map information based on the subsequent route information includes generating connection relation information that connects at least one of road information of a driving route of the target object, infrastructure information provided to the driving route, weather information of the driving route, and regulation information applied to the driving route to the subsequent route information” (Egbert col. 21, l. 61-col. 22, l. 10) where the information includes traffic law (i.e., regulation) information.
Regarding claim 10, Egbert discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Egbert discloses “wherein the preceding route information is updated through verification of the map information, wherein the verification of the map information includes: performing initial verification that checks at least one of integrity, continuity and regularity of the subsequent route information, (King et al., US Publication 2020/02113941 ¶ 17) by validating the trajectory based on the compatibility (i.e., integrity) of the trajectory. Further, Egbert discloses “performing simulation verification that identifies whether there are interference and collision between a plurality of moving objects through a simulation that virtualizes driving of the plurality of the moving objects” (Egbert col. 12, ll. 44-67) by simulating the trajectory to determine if there is an intersection between the vehicle and an object (i.e., a collision). Finally, Egbert discloses “correcting at least one of an object in the map information, metadata, and the subsequent route information based on an error occurring in the initial verification and the simulation verification” (Egbert col. 22, ll. 41-63) by updating (i.e., correcting) the trajectory (i.e., subsequent route information).
Regarding claim 11, it merely recites a device for performing the method of claim 1. The device comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. Egbert comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 of this title, 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Egbert in view of Tahmasbi-Sarvestani et al., US Publication 2019/0337512 (hereinafter Tahmasbi-Sarvestani).
Regarding claim 6, Egbert discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Egbert discloses “wherein the displacement information of the target object and the speed information of the target object are provided in a time series” (Egbert col. 7, ll. 11-40) where the buffer is based on the information of the vehicle over time. Further, Egbert discloses “the trajectory modeling is constructed to have feedback loop.” (Wang et al., US Publication 2021/00965662 ¶ 45)
Egbert does not appear to explicitly disclose “the generating of the predicted route generates the predicted route by using trajectory modeling including a nonlinear state transition method based on the time-series displacement information and the time-series speed information, and the trajectory modeling is constructed to have feedback based on an error between a predicted trajectory derived by the trajectory modeling and a trajectory derived based on the perception information.”
However, Tahmasbi-Sarvestani discloses a route prediction system including the step of “the generating of the predicted route generates the predicted route by using trajectory modeling including a nonlinear state transition method based on the time-series displacement information and the time-series speed information” (Tahmasbi-Sarvestani ¶ 77) where the provided formula is a nonlinear state vector including state transitions based on time values.
Additionally, Tahmasbi-Sarvestani discloses an error determination where the determination is “based on an error between a predicted trajectory derived by the trajectory modeling and a trajectory derived based on the perception information” (Tahmasbi-Sarvestani ¶ 69) where the error is detected from the current kinematic data (i.e., perception information).
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that when Tahmasbi-Sarvestani was combined with Egbert, the error detection method of Tahmasbi-Sarvestani would be used with the feedback look of Egbert. Therefore, the combination of Egbert and Tahmasbi-Sarvestani at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “the trajectory modeling is constructed to have feedback based on an error between a predicted trajectory derived by the trajectory modeling and a trajectory derived based on the perception information,” rendering it obvious.
Egbert and Tahmasbi-Sarvestani are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle route predictions.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Egbert and Tahmasbi-Sarvestani before him or her to modify the route prediction of Egbert to include the non-linear state function of Tahmasbi-Sarvestani.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Egbert teaches the “base device” for predicting a vehicle route. Further, Tahmasbi-Sarvestani teaches the “known technique” of using a nonlinear state function in the prediction of a route that is applicable to the base device of Egbert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, filed November 26, 2025, with respect to the objection to claim 1 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Egbert does not disclose the newly amended features. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 Incorporated by reference at Egbert col. 4, l. 52-col. 5, l. 2.
2 Incorporated by reference at Egbert col. 4, l. 52-col. 5, l. 2