DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination and Amendments and Arguments filed on 2/9/2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Examiner Notes
The claims filed 2/9/2026 are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 as the amendment to claim 6 of the claims filed 1/6/2026 is not reflected in the 2/9/2026 claims. The text of pending claims not being currently amended, including withdrawn claims, must be presented in clean version, i.e., without any markings. Any claim presented in clean version will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims. See MPEP 714. However, in an effort to advance prosecution, the 2/9/2026 claims are being examined in this Office action.
The pending claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as discussed below in the Response to Arguments section and the 35 USC 101 section of this Office action. To overcome this rejection by incorporating the judicial exception into a practical application, the examiner suggests amendments to the independent claims which recite that a map is created based on the “environmental feature information”, and that the map is used to navigate an automated vehicle as described on pg. 8, lines 3-26 of the specification as filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/9/2026, pg. 7, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) to the pending claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the rejection is rendered moot due to previous claim amendments.
As stated previously, the claims filed 2/9/2026 do not reflect the amendments of the claims filed 1/6/2026. Rather, claim 6 appears to have been amended from the claims filed 8/25/2025. Thus, claim 6 still contains language which renders the claim indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/9/2026, pg. 7, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 to the pending claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, pg. 7 of Remarks filed 1/6/2026, that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101 because "they require sensing with physical vehicle sensors" and “the claims recite concrete steps tied to the physical world such as vehicles, sensors, and environmental features, and the step of determining using SLAM/bundle block adjustment is technically rooted in computer vision and robotics.”
The examiner disagrees with this assertion. The limitations regarding sensing vehicle behaviors and receiving movement behaviors do not integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations amount to mere data gathering and are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as described below in the 35 USC 101 section of this Office action.
The limitations regarding SLAM methods and bundle block adjustment merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose environment, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate(s) the “determining the environmental feature limitation” step(s) of the claim. The additional limitation(s) amount(s) to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component, and do not integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as described below in the 35 USC 101 section of this Office action.
Applicant further asserts, pg. 7, that the claims "provide a technical solution to a technical problem, i.e., determining environmental feature positions more accurately using lateral vehicle separation and cooperative aggregation".
This is not found to be persuasive as the claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities or improve another technology, but instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The amended limitation of the independent claims “wherein the environmental feature information is determined by using lateral parallax between the first and second vehicles to compute a three-dimensional position of the environmental feature” is considered an additional aspect of the judicial exception. Determining environmental feature information based on vehicle sensor data and vehicle movement behavior from two vehicles using lateral parallax between the two vehicles can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/9/2026, pg. 7, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 to the pending claims have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 6 recite(s) the limitation "determine the environmental feature information, starting from the first and second environmental data values". This limitation is unclear and thus, the claim(s) is/are indefinite. Specifically, the limitations recite "starting from the first and second environmental data values". Starting from the environmental data values to what? It is unclear the meaning of "starting from..". Applicant's specification does not clarify the meaning of this term. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the scope of the limitation to be the environmental feature information is determined based on the first and second environmental data values.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, the claims recite a second device and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
A second device, comprising:
a computer configured to create a map, the method comprising the following steps:
receive environmental feature information determined by:
sensing first environmental data values representing a first environment of a first vehicle,
sensing a first movement behavior of the first vehicle,
receiving second environmental data values representing a second environment of a second vehicle, wherein the first environment and the second environment at least partially have a common region, wherein the common region includes at least one environmental feature,
receiving a second movement behavior of the second vehicle, and
determining the environmental feature information based on the first and second environmental data values and depending on the first and second movement behaviors, wherein the environmental feature information includes a position and a description of the at least one environmental feature;
create the map depending on the received environmental feature information; and
provide the map,
wherein the determination of the environmental feature information is based on observations of the environmental feature from laterally different positions of the first and second vehicles, wherein the environmental feature information is aggregated cooperatively such that only one vehicle transmits the aggregated information,
wherein the environmental feature information is determined by using lateral parallax between the first and second vehicles to compute a three-dimensional position of the environmental feature.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the “determining…” and “create…” in the contexts of this claim encompass forming a judgement on an environmental feature’s position and description based on a first and second’s vehicle’s sensor data obtained from laterally different positions of the first and second vehicles and the first and second’s vehicle’s dynamics, and making a map based on the environmental feature information. This can be done in the mind or with pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least two abstract idea(s).
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis of the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of the 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(s) are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
A second device, comprising:
a computer configured to create a map, the method comprising the following steps:
receive environmental feature information determined by:
sensing first environmental data values representing a first environment of a first vehicle,
sensing a first movement behavior of the first vehicle,
receiving second environmental data values representing a second environment of a second vehicle, wherein the first environment and the second environment at least partially have a common region, wherein the common region includes at least one environmental feature,
receiving a second movement behavior of the second vehicle, and
determining the environmental feature information based on the first and second environmental data values and depending on the first and second movement behaviors, wherein the environmental feature information includes a position and a description of the at least one environmental feature;
create the map depending on the received environmental feature information; and
provide the map,
wherein the determination of the environmental feature information is based on observations of the environmental feature from laterally different positions of the first and second vehicles, wherein the environmental feature information is aggregated cooperatively such that only one vehicle transmits the aggregated information,
wherein the environmental feature information is determined by using lateral parallax between the first and second vehicles to compute a three-dimensional position of the environmental feature.
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 limitation(s) of “a computer configured to”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “computer” is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgement in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The component(s) merely automate(s) the “determining..” step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I).
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “sensing first environmental data values representing a first environment of a first vehicle, sensing a first movement behavior of the first vehicle, receiving second environmental data values representing a second environment of a second vehicle, wherein the first environment and the second environment at least partially have a common region, wherein the common region includes at least one environmental feature, receiving a second movement behavior of the second vehicle,” “provide the map”, and “wherein the environmental feature information is aggregated cooperatively such that only one vehicle transmits the aggregated information”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity[ies]. In particular, the limitations “sensing first environmental data…”, “sensing a first movement behavior…”, “receiving second environmental data values…”, and “receiving a second movement behavior….” amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitation “provide the map” and “wherein the environmental feature information is aggregated cooperatively such that only one vehicle transmits the aggregated information” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting information from the “create…” step), and amounts to mere post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additional elements that are considered extra-solution activities do not integrate the claim into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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 computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, 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.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 9 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 limitation(s) of the “a computer configured to” is/are merely means to apply the exception and does not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 limitation(s) of “sensing first environmental data values representing a first environment of a first vehicle” and “receiving second environmental data values representing a second environment of a second vehicle, wherein the first environment and the second environment at least partially have a common region, wherein the common region includes at least one environmental feature” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification recites that these features are obtaining sensor data from an environmental sensor system, and the specification does not provide any indication that this is anything other than a traditional environmental sensor system of a vehicle (pg. 2, lines 10-21).
The additional limitation(s) of “sensing a first movement behavior of the first vehicle” and “receiving a second movement behavior of the second vehicle” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not describe how these movement behaviors are received, just that the movement behaviors are well-known vehicle dynamics (pg. 3, lines 10-12).
The additional limitation(s) of “provide the map” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the “second device” which creates the map is anything other than a well-known server (pg. 4, lines 3-4).
The additional limitation(s) of “wherein the environmental feature information is aggregated cooperatively such that only one vehicle transmits the aggregated information” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not describe that the transmission of the “aggregated information” is anything other than a conventional transmission between a vehicle and a well-known server (pg. 4, lines 25-26).
See also 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.
Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that storing and retrieving of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 1-5, the claim(s) recite(s) a method for determining and providing environmental feature information, and thus, are a process. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 1 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 9. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 9.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 6, the claim(s) recite(s) a first device and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 6 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 9. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 9. Additional elements present in the independent claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 9. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the “controller configured to determine and provide environmental feature information, the control unit configured to”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, these additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation(s) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose environment, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate(s) the functional step(s) of the claim. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation(s) amount(s) 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.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 7, the claim(s) recite(s) a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 7 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 9. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 9. Additional elements present in the independent claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 9. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for determining and providing environmental feature information, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, these additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation(s) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose environment, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate(s) the functional step(s) of the claim. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation(s) amount(s) 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.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 8, the claim(s) recite(s) a method for creating a map, and thus, are a process. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 8 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 9. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 9.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites limitations that are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. The limitations in the contexts of the claim encompass calculating of a relative distance between vehicles based on data, which is recited at a high level of generality. This determination can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper.
Claim 3 is directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites that “the determination of the environmental feature” (mental process of claim 1) is based on further collected data. The claim further recites “further environmental data values and further movement behaviors” are received, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional form of insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed above regarding similar limitations of claim 9.
Claim 4 is directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites that “the determination of the environmental feature” (mental process of claim 1) is based on further collected data. The claim further recites that the “movement behavior” of each vehicle is a “pose” of each vehicle, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional form of insignificant extra-solution activity because the background does not describe how these poses determined, just that the movement behaviors may comprise a pose of the vehicle (pg. 5, lines 1-4).
Claim 5 is directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. The claim recites “the environmental feature information” is determined (mental process of claim 1) using “bundle block adjustment and/or using SLAM methods”. This limitation(s) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose environment, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate(s) the functional step(s) of the claim. The additional limitation(s) amount(s) to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim(s), and thus, claim(s) 1-9 is/are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM- 6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666