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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 12/08/2025. Claims 1 & 15 have been amended. No other claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Accordingly, claims 1- 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative argues, in substance that neither Loomis nor Kaku teach and/or disclose:
generate a corridor defining a geometric area surrounding a road-level navigation route for a vehicle, a boundary of the corridor defined independently of boundaries of lanes of a road on which the vehicle is traveling;
the corridor extends laterally from the road-level navigation route for a preset width centered on the road-level navigation route;
individually determine whether the lane segments in the lane-level map intersect the corridor as applied to the lane-level map in an order starting with the closest lane segment to the vehicle;
determine a transformation between a road-level map and the lane-level map
the lane segments in the lane-segment set define a network graph.
In response to applicant’s argument A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially the examiner would like to point out that applicant’s representative employs broad language and as such the examiner reserves the right to interpret the claims broadly. The claim does not mention the exact dimensions and/or shape of the corridor, all that is needed to read on this limitation is a corridor (I.e., geometric area of any shape and/or size) surrounding a road-level navigation route for a vehicle. Hence, the examiner contends, at the very least, Loomis’s disclosure of an off-road area [340] that is traversable by the vehicle independent of the boundaries of lane of a road, reads on this contested limitation(s).
In response to B, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner contends once again that the contested limitation does not say how far and/or in what direction the corridor extends from the road-level navigation route, and does not mention the dimensions of a “preset width”. Hence, once again the examiner contends that, at the very least, Loomis’s disclosure of an off-road area [340] that is traversable by the vehicle independent of the boundaries of lane of a road and that it extends laterally from the road, reads on this contested limitation(s). Additionally, Kaku discloses waypoints being utilized to demarcate the left and right lane lines of a road, and as such these waypoints correspond to a preset width and are located laterally from the road level navigation route (see at least fig. 9A and par. 72).
In response to C, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner asserts that Loomis’s disclosure of an off-road area [340] indicating—a greyed out section representing a corridor—closest to and eventually intersecting the lane(s) as reading on this limitation (see Loomis at least fig. 3).
In response to D, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Once again, the examiner contends that the claims are broad and as such do not define what form/type of transformation; hence any operation that that alters the position, orientation, or size of an image/figure/lane would read on this limitation. As such the examiner contends that Loomis’s disclosure of a projecting/alerting an area for the vehicle to traverse off-road (i.e., the corridor 340) reads on this limitation. Additionally, the examiner contends that Kaku’s disclosure of demarcating the lanes using waypoints reads on this limitation as well.
In response to E, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation does not mention and/or elaborate on what a network graph is, as such the examiner contends that both Loomis and Kaku’s disclosure of the multiple lanes in the network of roads (see at least fig. 1-6 in Loomis and fig. 6-8 Kaku) reads on this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loomis (CN109791050 A).
Loomis discloses:
1: A computer comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to:
generate a corridor defining a geometric area surrounding a road-level navigation route for a vehicle, a boundary of the corridor defined independently of boundaries of lanes of a road on which the vehicle is traveling (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340]);
apply the corridor to a lane-level map, the lane-level map including a plurality of lane segments, each lane segment defining the respective lane of the road from one endpoint to another endpoint (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340]; virtual lane 340 and lane guidance segments 335);
populate a lane-segment set with a subset of the lane segments from the lane-level map based on the application of the corridor to the lane-level map (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340]; virtual lane 340 and lane guidance segments 335); and
determine a lane-level navigation route based on the lane-segment set, the lane-level navigation route following the road-level navigation route (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340]; virtual lane 340 and lane guidance segments 335).
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 15: a method comprising: generating a corridor defining a geometric area surrounding a road-level navigation route for a vehicle, a boundary of the corridor defined independently of boundaries of lanes of a road on which the vehicle is traveling; applying the corridor to a lane-level map, the lane-level map including a plurality of lane segments, each lane segment defining the respective lane of the road from one endpoint to another endpoint; populating a lane-segment set with a subset of the lane segments from the lane-level map based on the application of the corridor to the lane-level map; and determining a lane-level navigation route based on the lane-segment set, the lane-level navigation route following the road-level navigation route (see Loomis claim 1 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-14 & 16- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loomis and further in view of Kaku (US2022/0188581 A1).
As per claim 2, Loomis discloses the invention as detailed above.
However, Loomis does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further include instructions to operate the vehicle to follow the lane-level navigation route.
Nevertheless, Kaku—who is in the same field of endeavor—discloses wherein the instructions further include instructions to operate the vehicle to follow the lane-level navigation route (see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77; Autonomous vehicle, controller module [340] to control vehicle actions—acceleration, braking, steering, etc.).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given would have been motivated to combine Kaku’s autonomous vehicle controller with those of Loomis’s in order to provide high level navigation and guidance of autonomous agents through its surrounding environment.
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from Kaku (see Kaku at least ¶ 2-6).
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 3: wherein the instructions further include instructions to operate a steering system of the vehicle to follow the lane-level navigation route (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 4: wherein the instructions to operate the steering system to follow the lane-level navigation route include instructions to perform a lane change (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 5: wherein the corridor extends laterally from the road-level navigation route for a preset width centered on the road-level navigation route (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 6: wherein the preset width is greater than a width of one of the lane segments (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 7: wherein the corridor follows the road-level navigation route up to a preset travel horizon (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 8: wherein the instructions further include instructions to include the lane segments that at least partially intersect the corridor as applied to the lane-level map in the lane-segment set (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 9: wherein the instructions further include instructions to individually determine whether the lane segments in the lane-level map intersect the corridor as applied to the lane-level map in an order starting with a closest lane segment to the vehicle (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 10: wherein the order progresses through the lane segments laterally touching the lane segments in the lane-segment set until one of the lane segments does not intersect the corridor (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 11: wherein the order progresses in a vehicle-forward direction through the lane segments longitudinally touching the lane segments in the lane-segment set until one of the lane segments does not intersect the corridor (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 12: wherein the road-level navigation route is generated from a road-level map (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 13: wherein the instructions further include instructions to determine a transformation between a road-level map and the lane-level map, and apply the corridor to the lane-level map based on the transformation (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 14: wherein the lane segments in the lane-segment set define a network graph, and the instructions further include instructions to determine the lane-level navigation route by searching for an optimal route traversing the network graph (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 16: further comprising operating the vehicle to follow the lane-level navigation route (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 17: wherein the corridor extends laterally from the road-level navigation route for a preset width centered on the road-level navigation route (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 18: further comprising including the lane segments that at least partially intersect the corridor as applied to the lane-level map in the lane-segment set (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 19: wherein the road-level navigation route is generated from a road-level map (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
Both Loomis and Kaku disclose claim 20: further comprising determining a transformation between a road-level map and the lane-level map, and applying the corridor to the lane-level map based on the transformation (see Loomis at least fig. 1-6 and in particular fig. 3 [310, 315, 335, 340] and see Kaku at least fig. 1-10 and in particular fig. 2-3 & 9 and ¶23, 49-56, 77).
Motivation to combine Loomis and Kaku—in the instant claim—is the same as that in claim 2 above.
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 MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 PM ES.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MACEEH ANWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights