DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, and 17 are amended. Claims 21-22 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment, see section “Claim Objections”, filed June 18, 2026, overcomes objections to claims 6, 16 and 17.
Applicant’s argument, see section “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C 112”, filed June 18, 2026, with respect to “the identified information” in claims 1 and 11, fail to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. In claim 1 line 3 and claim 11 line 6, information about the environment is received. In claim 1 lines 4-5 and claim 11 lines 6-7, the method is identifying a road marking using that information and claim 1 line 7 and claim 11 line 9 recite “the identified information”. Claim 1 lines 4-5 and claim 11 lines 6-7 do not recite identified information, but rather states “identifying, based on information about the environment, a road marking that is located within the environment” (emphasis added). Therefore, it is unclear whether “the identified information” in claim 1 line 7 and claim 11 line 9 is referring to that road marking. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections of claims 1-22 are recited below.
Applicant's arguments, see section “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102”, filed June 18, 2026, with respect to “object-based approach” in claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The term “object-based approach” is very broad. Shapira teaches that a road marking is treated as an object and can be tracked/motion tracked, wherein detecting road markings correspond to object-based approach and road marks correspond to object information under broadest reasonable interpretation (see Shapira, Fig. 5B-5C; paragraphs 0189 and 0191).
However, the amended limitation “wherein the estimating comprises selecting a number of road elements passed by the vehicle to be taken into account when determining a concealed curve, wherein the selecting is based on a tradeoff between computational complexity and accuracy of determination” does contain allowable subject matter. See reasons for allowance presented below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Step 140 (see paragraph 0041) and
Vehicle sensing unit 210 (see paragraph 0051).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0027 of the specification, applicant recites “example swill”. This appears to be a typographical error and should be “examples will”.
In paragraph 0045 of the specification, applicant recites “net sensed by” (emphasis added). This appears to be a typographical error and should be “not sensed by” (emphasis added).
In paragraph 0054 of the specification, applicant refers to “Figure 3”. This appears to be a typographical error and should be “Figure 4,” since the following description includes reference signs shown in Figure 4.
In paragraph 0055 of the specification, applicant refers to “segments 312, 312, 314, and 322” (emphasis added). This appears to be a typographical error and should be “segments 312, 313, 314, and 322” (emphasis added).
In paragraph 0058 of the specification, applicant refers to second road element 317 as a “road area with a locally unique hole” being represented by road element metadata RE7 37. Applicant also refers to third road element 318 as a “road area with a locally unique road marking “STOP” being represented by road element metadata RE8 38. It appears that the road elements 317 and 318 and their respective metadata RE7 37 and RE8 38 are swapped since Figure 5 shows reference sign 317 corresponding to “STOP and 318 corresponding to a hole.
In paragraph 0060 of the specification, applicant refers to “road elements 321, 323 and 323” (emphasis added). This appears to be a typographical error and should be “road elements 321, 322 and 323” (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-22 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the claims recite “the identified information” in line 7 of claim 1 and line 8 of claim 11. However, it is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the identified information as information of the environment or a road marking. Line 3 of claim 1 and line 4 of claim 11 cite “information about the environment”. Line 4 of claim 1 and line 5 of claim 11 cite “identifying… a road marking”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the applicant is limiting the claim to road markings, specifically, or to information about the environment, and applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-10 and 21-22 depend on claim 1 and claims 12-20 depend on claim 11, and fail to clarify what “the identified information” is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Lines 1-3 of claim 7 and lines 2-4 of claim 17 recite "estimating, using the object-based approach, a location of the road marking in the environment when the road marking is temporarily concealed from a perspective of the vehicle”. However, lines 11-13 of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on, and lines 13-15 of claim 11, which claim 17 depends on, recite “estimating, using the object-based approach, a location of the road marking in the environment when the road marking is temporarily concealed from a perspective of the vehicle”. Therefore, claims 7 and 17 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, as claim 1 and claim 11 already establish estimating “a location” and “a perspective” in the limitation of “estimating, using the object-based approach, a location of the road marking in the environment when the road marking is temporarily concealed from a perspective of the vehicle”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest wherein the estimating comprises selecting a number of road elements passed by the vehicle to be taken into account when determining a concealed curve, wherein the selecting is based on a tradeoff between computational complexity and accuracy of determination, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
The closest prior arts, Shapira et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2021/0103287 A1), Kazuhisa et al. (Japanese Publication No. JP 2018/088151), and Lee (U.S. Publication No. US 2022/0207276 A1) teach the following:
Shapira teaches a method of receiving images of the environment (Fig. 1 elements 110 and 190; paragraph 0426), detecting road lane markings from the images (paragraph 0181), producing measurements for the detected road markings/objects (paragraphs 0187-0189), tracking after the road marking while driving of the vehicle (paragraph 0191 and 0321), and feeding the object information to a perception system Fig. 5A and 5C; paragraph 0426).
Kazuhisa teaches estimating a location of the road marking when a part of the road marking is concealed based on identified road surface image data (paragraph 0043)
Lee teaches detecting pixels that correspond to the lanes in front of the vehicle (Fig. 2 and 4A; paragraphs 0030-0032) to estimate curved lanes (Abstract; Fig. 1 and 11; paragraphs 0002 and 0007).
However, the prior arts, either applied alone or in combination with one another, fail to specifically teach wherein the estimating comprises selecting a number of road elements passed by the vehicle to be taken into account when determining a concealed curve, wherein the selecting is based on a tradeoff between computational complexity and accuracy of determination in combination with the other limitations recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 has limitations that are substantially similar to that of claim 1. Therefore, the reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter of claim 1 also applies equally to claim 11.
Claims 2-10, 12-20 and 21-22 include allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency on claims 1 or 11.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL Y DANG whose telephone number is (571)438-9519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7am - 4:30pm.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Rachel Dang/ Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights