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 .
Specification
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (CN 110543885 B), hereinafter referred to as Cui, in view of Chen et al. (CN 116246172 A), hereinafter referred to as Chen and in view of Forshaw (WO2022023199A1).
In regards to claim 1, Cui discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: a first selection step of selecting a pixel corresponding to a road as a first point (Paragraphs marked (3.1.a) – (3.1.d) on pages 6-7, The step of (3.1.a) discloses that a first pixel is selected as the FirstPoint), an estimation step of estimating road information at the first point (Paragraphs marked (3.1.a) – (3.1.d) on pages 6-7 and )3.4.b) and (3.4.c) on page 8, The mere disclosure of whether or not an area is a road or not is enough to be in line with the BRI of “road information”); a second selection step of selecting a second point that is advanced a predetermined distance from the first point (Paragraphs marked (3.1.a) – (3.1.d) on pages 6-7 and (3.4.b) and (3.4.c) on page 8, section 3.1.b in particular covers that the current point gets updated to become a new point and the sections on page 8 cover that this is done in reference to a shortest distance that must be underneath a certain threshold which would be within a BRI of predetermined distance); and a storing step of storing a link between the first point and the second point as a road link if it is determined that the link between the first point and the second point does not intersect any other road link already stored (Paragraphs marked (3.4.c) and (3.4.d) on page 8, Section discloses that if a segment is already found in section (3.4.d) that it is not stored as a new link while (3.4.c) goes over the storing process), wherein if it is determined that the link between the first point and the second point intersect a road link already stored, the second point is set as a new first point and said first selection step, said estimation step, said second selection step and said storing step are performed again (Paragraph marked (3.4.e), Discloses that it loops until there is nothing left to be found).
Cui does not explicitly disclose corresponding to a road from a mask image indicating whether each pixel corresponds to a road or not.
Chen does disclose corresponding to a road from a mask image indicating whether each pixel corresponds to a road or not (New paragraphs 5-6 on page 3, Chen discloses that the pixels are sorted in a segmentation mask).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the two references as it would be simple substitution to use the segmentation mask of Chen instead of Cui’s buffer mask. Cui’s invention uses a buffer mask to cover the edge zones of the road. One could simply substitute the segmentation mask which has edges be labelled as not road as that is really all that is needed to determine where the buffer is. As such, it would be prima facie obvious to combine these two arts.
Neither Cui nor Chen explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined distance is a variable distance.
However, Forshaw does disclose wherein the predetermined distance is a variable distance (Page 9 lines 31-33, Forshaw discloses that the target object can be located at a variable distance from the ego location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of these arts. The inclusion of a variable distance would allow for a predictable increase in accuracy. The method of Cui allows for this process to only occur amidst the neighboring eight pixels. However, including the variable distance disclosed by Forshaw would allow for it to be able to approximate across larger distances which would allow for increased accuracy at great distance. As such, it would be obvious to combine these arts.
In regards to claim 5, Cui discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a processor and a memory storing a computer-program which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the method of claim 1 (Fourth new paragraph of page 3, Discloses that the method is based off prior computer programming work as such running their method would require a computer implicitly and would cover these limitations).
Response to Amendment
The amendment entered 7/08/2026 has been entered and considered in full. The amended language overcomes all claim objections, most of the specification objections, and all of the 112 rejections. The newly added language to claim 1 overcomes the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, but after further search, pertinent prior art was found that discloses the claimed material. As such, those claims are still rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 07/08/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Forshaw (WO2022023199A1). Applicant’s arguments that neither Chen nor Cui disclose a variable distance are accurate. However, after further search, Forshaw does disclose this variable distance. As such, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are made in this action.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm. EST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571 272-3838. 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.
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/DAVID ORANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
