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 the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 02 December 2025. Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12-14 and 18-28 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 2, 6-8, 11 and 15-17 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections and rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 10 September 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections and rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 10 September 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 10 September 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. For example, Applicant has not amended the claims nor argued/explained in order to clarify, a “lateral offset of the vehicle” to what and a “corrected location” of what Applicant is referring to. See 35 USC 112(b) below.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 10 September 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. The independent claims recite limitations such as “obtaining a road feature map based on the front road image; obtaining a second pose of the vehicle based on the road feature map and a plurality of candidate pose points in a local map, ...; and setting a vehicle positioning of the vehicle based on the second location” that are a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of mental process as they recite an abstract idea which is directed to mental process. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at data collected and determining information from the collected data. To be more specific to the claim, Examiner notes that for example a person can look at a captured image and/or its corresponding data in order to decide which map corresponds to the associated image to further analyze such map and/or in order to draw the map corresponding to the associated image (“obtaining a road feature map based on the front road image”), then by using/analyzing data related to the map and a group of pose points, a person can determine a next pose of the vehicle which includes next location and attitude information (“obtaining a second pose of the vehicle based on the road feature map and a plurality of candidate pose points in a local map, ...”) and once the person has determined the second/next pose of the vehicle which includes the second/next location, using such the person can determine the vehicle’s positioning information (“setting a vehicle positioning of the vehicle based on the second location”). And in all these steps various data such as “a pose of each of the plurality of candidate pose points ... a lateral offset of the vehicle, a first pose of the vehicle, ... the local map corresponding to the first pose, ... a lane line feature in the road feature map, ... a corrected location as a center, ... a projected path of the vehicle, ... a lane central point location and a road orientation angle that are corresponding to the first pose and that are in the local map” may be data available to the person as collected/obtained/etc. and/or may be data determined by the user based on the data available to the person as collected/obtained/etc. which also helps the person make all these various analysis and determinations. The claim language includes the broad language of “... based on ...” recited in numerous limitations and the overall claim language does not include any particular limitation and/or combination of limitations that would add anything 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, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See 35 USC 101 below for further clarification and additional details regarding the limitations.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12-14 and 18-28 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.
Claims 1, 10 and 20 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “a lateral offset of the vehicle”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, a lateral offset of the vehicle to what Applicant is referring to.
Claims 1, 10 and 20 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “a corrected location”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, a corrected location of what Applicant is referring to.
Claims 3-5, 9, 12-14, 18-19 and 21-28 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12-14 and 18-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 10 is directed to an apparatus and claim 20 is directed to a vehicle. Therefore, claims 1, 10 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 10 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
obtaining a front road image of a vehicle;
obtaining a road feature map based on the front road image;
obtaining a second pose of the vehicle based on the road feature map and a plurality of candidate pose points in a local map, wherein a pose of each of the plurality of candidate pose points is based on a lateral offset of the vehicle, a first pose of the vehicle, and the local map corresponding to the first pose, wherein the second pose is a next pose of the first pose, wherein the second pose comprises a second location and a second attitude, wherein the lateral offset is based on a lane line feature in the road feature map, wherein the plurality of candidate pose points is evenly distributed in a same lane direction of the local map using a corrected location as a center, wherein the same lane direction is along a projected path of the vehicle, and wherein the corrected location is based on the lateral offset of the vehicle and based on a lane central point location and a road orientation angle that are corresponding to the first pose and that are in the local map; and
setting a vehicle positioning of the vehicle based on the second location
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, obtaining a map and a pose and setting a vehicle positioning in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper (drawing, etc.). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method comprising:
obtaining a front road image of a vehicle;
obtaining a road feature map based on the front road image; and
obtaining a second pose of the vehicle based on the road feature map and a plurality of candidate pose points in a local map, wherein a pose of each of the plurality of candidate pose points is based on a lateral offset of the vehicle, a first pose of the vehicle, and the local map corresponding to the first pose, wherein the second pose is a next pose of the first pose, wherein the second pose comprises a second location and a second attitude, wherein the lateral offset is based on a lane line feature in the road feature map, wherein the plurality of candidate pose points is evenly distributed in a same lane direction of the local map using a corrected location as a center, wherein the same lane direction is along a projected path of the vehicle, and wherein the corrected location is based on the lateral offset of the vehicle and based on a lane central point location and a road orientation angle that are corresponding to the first pose and that are in the local map; and
setting a vehicle positioning of the vehicle based on the second location
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of obtaining [an] image, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining [image] step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving data for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 10 and 20 further recite the “A method comprising ...” (claim 1), “An apparatus, comprising: one or more memories configured to store programming instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to: ...” (claim 10) and “A vehicle, comprising: a first camera configured to ...; and an apparatus configured to: ...” (claim 20) merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
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, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of obtaining [an] image are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-5, 9, 12-14, 18-19 and 21-28 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3-5, 9, 12-14, 18-19 and 21-28 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12-14 and 18-28 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667