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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on November 13, 2025. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the features of claim 1 cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind (Applicant’s Response, pg. 7), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations “forming…,” “processing…,” “dividing…,” “performing…,” “recording…,” “forming…,” “performing…,” “performing…,” and forming…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. For example, “forming a global map of an area and dividing the global map into cells” is the same as a driver looking all around the vehicle and separating it into sections, “processing the images to detect linear objects of a roadway” is the same as a driver looking at data and determining where the road lines are, “dividing the local map into cells” is the same as the driver only looking in front of the vehicle and dividing it based on distance to the vehicle, “performing and initial assessment of the probability” is the same as the driver estimating where they believe the road lines are, “recording features of the detected linear objects of the roadway in the appropriate cells” is the user determining where in the divided cells the road lines are located, “forming lines” is the same as the driver visualizing where the entire road line is, “performing an evaluation” is the same as the driver looking at the data received to make a decision on the information, “performing summation of the estimation” is the same as the driver adding up the probability that a road line is located in the divided sections, and “forming a resulting map of the roadway” is the same as the driver determining where the road lines are located in relation to the vehicle.
Drawings
The drawings were received on November 13, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 11, “an initial assessment of the probability” should read “an initial assessment of a probability”.
In claim 1, line 22, “the corresponding part of the global map” should read “a corresponding part of the global map”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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.
In claim 1, lines 9-10, the limitation “detection of linear objects of the roadway” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the detect[ed] linear objects of a roadway previously recited on line 7 or new detected linear objects of the roadway.
In claim 1, lines 12-13, the limitation “wherein an evaluation of the probabilities” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same as the initial assessment of the probability previously recited on line 11 or a new evaluation. In paragraph 0027 of the specification, it appears the evaluation of the probabilities is the same as the assessment.
In claim 1, line 13, the limitation “wherein an evaluation of the probabilities for the cells of the global map is performed a priori” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it means that the evaluation is done before the initial assessment previously recited on line 11 or that the evaluation is an a priori evaluation.
In claim 1, lines 16-18, the limitation “the features of the selected linear object of the roadway transmitted are in the cells of the local map” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear where the features of the selected linear object of the roadway are transmitted to/from. In paragraph 0020 of the specification, it appears that the features of the selected linear object of the roadway are stored instead of transmitted.
In claim 1, line 19, the limitation “forming lines using salient points of the allocated polylines” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the same salient points previously recited on lines 17-18 or new salient points.
In claim 2, line 2, the limitation ‘the detection of linear objects” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the detect[ed] linear objects previously recited in claim 1, line 7 or new detected linear objects.
Claims 2-7 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not
clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 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
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of terrain mapping for autonomous vehicles (AV) (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method of terrain mapping for an autonomous vehicle (AV), the method comprising:
forming a global map of an area and dividing the global map into cells, wherein the global map is recorded into a mapping module;
sending, using cameras installed on the AV, images to the mapping module implemented by an on-board computer of the AV;
processing the images to detect linear objects of a roadway, and forming a local map including features of the detected linear objects of the roadway;
dividing the local map into cells to account for errors in detection of linear objects of the roadway;
performing an initial assessment of the probability of finding features of a selected linear object in the cells of the global and local maps, wherein an evaluation of the probabilities for the cells of the global map is performed a priori;
recording features of the detected linear objects of the roadway in the appropriate cells of the global and local maps based on previously known camera calibration and a current location of the AV, wherein the features of the selected linear object of the roadway transmitted are in the cells of the local map in the form of salient points of allocated polylines;
forming lines using salient points of the allocated polylines;
performing an evaluation in each cell of the local map for the probability of finding the features of the selected linear object of the roadway;
superimposing a resulting part of the local map on the corresponding part of the global map, and performing summation of the estimation probability to detect the selected linear object of the roadway considering previous assessments;
forming a resulting map of the roadway via binarization of the local map cells using threshold probabilities to find the features of the selected linear object of the roadway, via the on-board computer.
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, “forming…,” “processing…,” “dividing…,” “performing…,” “recording…,” “forming…,” “performing…,” “performing…,” and forming…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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 of terrain mapping for an autonomous vehicle (AV), the method comprising:
forming a global map of an area and dividing the global map into cells, wherein the global map is recorded into a mapping module;
sending, using cameras installed on the AV, images to the mapping module implemented by an on-board computer of the AV;
processing the images to detect linear objects of a roadway, and forming a local map including features of the detected linear objects of the roadway;
dividing the local map into cells to account for errors in detection of linear objects of the roadway;
performing an initial assessment of the probability of finding features of a selected linear object in the cells of the global and local maps, wherein an evaluation of the probabilities for the cells of the global map is performed a priori;
recording features of the detected linear objects of the roadway in the appropriate cells of the global and local maps based on previously known camera calibration and a current location of the AV, wherein the features of the selected linear object of the roadway transmitted are in the cells of the local map in the form of salient points of allocated polylines;
forming lines using salient points of the allocated polylines;
performing an evaluation in each cell of the local map for the probability of finding the features of the selected linear object of the roadway;
superimposing a resulting part of the local map on the corresponding part of the global map, and performing summation of the estimation probability to detect the selected linear object of the roadway considering previous assessments;
forming a resulting map of the roadway via binarization of the local map cells using threshold probabilities to find the features of the selected linear object of the roadway, via the on-board computer.
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 “sending…” and “superimposing…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the sending steps from the sensor is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data processing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “superimposing…” is also recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general means of combining results from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution data processing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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. see 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 Revised Guidance, 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, the additional limitations of “sending…” and “superimposing…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 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 well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-7 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 ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665