DETAILED ACTION
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
This communication is in response to Application 18/637,071 filed on 04/20/2026. Claims 1-2, 4, 15-16 and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1, 15 and 19,
Applicant argues that the clarifying amendments to independent claims 1, 15 and 19 obviate the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the amendments have been fully considered, the amended claims continue to recite a judicial exception comprising mental processes, including evaluating sensor-derived information, comparing corresponding data points, determining whether a distance exceeds a threshold, identifying and adjusting erroneous location information, determining a vehicle location and selecting a corresponding path. As discussed below, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the exception.
Applicant argues that claims 1-20 are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims are directed to generating an estimated path traveled by each vehicle, generating an average path for each lane based on the estimated paths, and sending instructions to navigate in accordance with the selected average path. Applicant further relies on determining whether each location data point is erroneous based on whether a distance between the location data point and a corresponding point on the motion data trace exceeds a threshold, and adjusting an erroneous location data point. Applicant asserts that these limitations are not mental processes.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not characterize the physical capturing of data by the location sensor or non-location sensors as mental process. Rather, the sensor derived data constitute information gathered for use in the subsequently recited analysis. The claims expressly recite determining a motion data trace, comparing a location data point with a corresponding point on the motion data trace, evaluating whether the distance between the points exceeds a threshold, determining whether the location data point is erroneous, adjusting the erroneous location data point, determining a current vehicle location and selecting the average path corresponding to a particular lane. At the level of generality claimed, these limitations constitute observations, comparisons, evaluations and judgement that can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person may plot location and motion data points, compare corresponding points, determine whether a measured distance exceeds a selected threshold, identify an erroneous point, correct the point and select the path associated with a particular lane. The claims do not require a particular minimum number of vehicles or data points, processing speed, real-time operation, specialized processor, or technological architecture that would place the recited analysis beyond practical human performance. Accordingly, the amended limitations continue to recite a mental process.
Applicant argues that, at most, claims 1-20 merely involve, and only in part, what could be considered an abstract concept, which is insufficient to render the claims patent ineligible because all inventions may embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply abstract ideas.
The Examiner acknowledges that merely involving an abstract is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that a claim recites a judicial exception. However, the present claims do more than merely involve an abstract concept. The claims expressly set forth the analytical operations constituting the judicial exception, including determining a motion data trace, comparing corresponding data points, applying a threshold, identifying erroneous data, adjusting the erroneous data, determining a vehicle location and selecting a corresponding path. Thus, the abstract idea is affirmatively recited in the claims and is not merely incidental to an otherwise technological process.
Applicant argues that, even assuming the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims include particular limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements include a generally recited computing system, a location sensor, one or more non-location sensors, and a device associated with the subject vehicle. The sensors provide the information upon which the recited analysis is performed, the computing system performs the information analysis, and the vehicle associated device receives the resulting navigation instructions. The claims do not recite an improvement to the structure, operation, sensitivity, accuracy, or reliability of the computing system, location sensor, non-location sensors, vehicle associated device or vehicle. Nor do the claims recite a particular sensor configuration, sensor fusion architecture, calibration process, computing architecture, or vehicle control arrangement. Instead, the asserted improvement resides in the information produced by the recited analysis namely, an adjusted location data point, an estimated path and corresponding navigation instructions. The claims therefore use generic technological components as tools for gathering, analyzing and communicating information without imposing a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception.
Applicant argues that Step 2A, Prong Two excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and that even a conventional computing element may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an improvement to computer functionality or another technological field.
The Examiner agrees that whether an additional element is well-understood, routine and conventional is not considered in determining whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. However, the present determination under Prong Two is not based merely on a finding that the computing system, sensors and vehicle associated device are conventional. Rather, the determination is based on how those elements are used in the claims. The sensors supply data, the computing system performs the recited mental analysis and the vehicle associated device receives the result. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computing system, sensors device or vehicle; effect a particular transformation; or apply the exception through a particular machine in a manner that meaningfully limits the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a technical improvement because the estimated path is generated by determining whether a location data point generated from location sensor data is erroneous based on its distance from a corresponding point on a motion data trace generated from non-location sensor data, and adjusting the location data point when it is determined to be erroneous.
The Examiner has considered Applicant asserted technological improvement but is not persuaded that the claims recite a particular technological implementation sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application. The claims require determining that a location data point is erroneous when a distance exceeds a threshold and adjusting the erroneous location data point. However, the claims do not specify how the corrected location data point is calculated, how the corresponding point on the motion data trace is identified, how the motion data trace is specifically generated from the non-location sensor data or how the adjustment changes or improves the operation of the location sensor. The location and non-location sensors continue to perform the function of capturing data. The asserted improvement results from evaluating and manipulating the information produced by those sensors, rather than from a claimed improvement to the operation of the sensors, computing system, or vehicle. The claims therefore recite the desired information result of correction location information without reciting a particular technological mechanism for achieving that result.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention solves a recognized technical problem involving inaccurate location data points generated from a location sensor, such as GPS sensor, under certain conditions. Applicant further argues that the claims provide a technical solution by correcting inaccurate location information using motion data points captured by non-location sensors.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Patent eligibility is determined based on what the claims recite, considered as a whole, rather than solely on how the problem and alleged improvement are characterized in the specification. Here, the claims recite comparing data points, applying a threshold, determining that a point is erroneous and adjusting the point. The claims do not recite the particular technical procedure by which the corrected value is calculated or how the operation of the location sensor or another technological component is improved. Accordingly, the claims apply an information analysis process within the field of vehicle localization but do not recite a specific technological improvement to the underlying location sensing or vehicle navigation technology.
Applicant argues that prior art reference Cui addresses a similar, if not the same, technical problem, thereby supporting Applicant’s position that the claimed solution constitutes a patent eligible technological improvement.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Whether Cui addresses a similar technical problem or discloses a similar solution concerns the separate statutory requirement of novelty and nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. The existence of prior art directed to inaccurate vehicle location information does not establish that the pending claims recite an improvement to the operation of a computer, sensor, navigation device, or vehicle. Patent eligibility is determined from the language of the claims under the applicable 35 U.S.C. 101 framework, not from whether the general problem or proposed solution is recognized in the prior art.
For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s amendments and arguments do not establish that claims 1-20 avoid reciting a judicial exception, integrate the judicial into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the exception. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Examiner notes independent claims 15 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale as independent claim 1.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
Step 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
Step 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method comprising, by a computing system:
generating, for each vehicle in a plurality of vehicles, an estimated path traveled by that vehicle in an area, the estimated path being generated by [insignificant post-solution activity]:
receiving historical data of the vehicle traveling in the area, the historical data including a sequence of location data points and a sequence of motion-data points, wherein the sequence of location data points is generated based on data captured by a location sensor of the vehicle when the vehicle is traveling in the area, and the sequence of motion-data points is generated based on data captured by one or more non-location sensors of the vehicle when the vehicle is traveling in the area [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensor];
determining a motion-data trace of a path traveled by that vehicle in the area based on the sequence of motion-data points associated with that vehicle [mental process/step],
generating the estimated path traveled by that vehicle based on the sequence of location data points and the motion-data trace of the path associated with that vehicle by [insignificant post-solution activity]:
determining whether each location data point is erroneous based on whether a distance between the location data point and a corresponding point on the motion data-trace is greater than a threshold [mental process/step]; and
adjusting, in response to a determination that the location data point is erroneous, the location data point in the sequence of location data points in the estimated path [mental process/step];
generating, for each lane in the area, an average path traveled by a subset of the plurality of vehicles in the area based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles [insignificant post-solution activity]];
determining a current location of a subject vehicle, wherein the current location is within a particular lane in the area [mental process/step];
selecting, in response to a determination that the current location is within the area, an average path corresponding to the particular lane in the area [mental process/step]
sending, to a device associated with the subject vehicle, instructions to navigate from the current location in accordance with the selected average path corresponding to the particular lane [insignificant post-solution activity (outputting/displaying results)]].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 1 recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A, Prong one evaluation: Judicial exception – Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
The office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of determining a motion-data trace of a path traveled by that vehicle in the area based on the sequence of motion-data points associated with that vehicle, adjusting, in response to a determination that the location data point is erroneous, the location data point in the sequence of location data points in the estimated path, determining a current location of a subject vehicle, wherein the current location is within a particular lane in the area, and selecting, in response to a determination that the current location is within the area, an average path corresponding to the particular lane in the area. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “computing system, location sensor, non-location sensors and device” That is, other than reciting “computing system, location sensor, non-location sensors and device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computing system” That is, other than reciting “computing system, location sensor, non-location sensors and device”, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of sensor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of computing system, location sensor, non-location sensors and device. In particular, the “computing system, location sensor, non-location sensors and device” limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Twp, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the computing system, location sensor, non-location sensors and device were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that “The sensor data may be obtained from sensors on the computing device, and may include gyroscope data, accelerometer data, barometer sensor data, compass data or any other suitable sensor data” (See ¶17 of applicant’s specification), and further does not provide any indication that the computing units are anything other than conventional computer element(s) (See ¶18 of applicant’s specification). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, the claim is ineligible.
The independent system claim 15 recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 outlined above.
The independent medium claim 19 recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 outlined above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-14, 16-18 and 20 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-14, 16-18 and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 15 and 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ma et al., US 20160102986 A1 discloses generating, in respect of a road intersection, grouped probe data using probe data derived from probed vehicular movements through the road intersection, wherein the grouped probe data is generated by grouping together probe data comprising vehicle trajectories which have respective common heading angles at points of entry to and exit from the road intersection; and provide the grouped probe data for use in lane-level mapping of the road intersection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights