DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1,2,3,5 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO et al. (CN 115424435 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II further in view of TANG et al. (CN 11213154 A) with SEARCH machine translation.
Claim(s) 2,3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO et al. (CN 115424435 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II further in view of TANG et al. (CN 11213154 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 1,2,3,5 further in view of ZHAO et al. (CN 111932553 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO et al. (CN 115424435 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II further in view of TANG et al. (CN 11213154 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 1,2,3,5 further in view of HUBERMAN (US 2022/0383744 A1):
Response to Amendment
The amendment was received 7/7/2026. Claims 1,2,3,4,5 pending:
PNG
media_image1.png
219
122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1,2,3,5 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
PNG
media_image2.png
268
147
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step zero: establish broadest reasonable interpretation (in footnotes)
Step 1: Claim 1 is a process; Claim 4 is a process;
Step 2A, prong 1:
The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea: mental process and math:
Re claim 1:
“acquiring a plurality of road graphs…
images obtained by dividing…
grouping the plurality of road graphs into groups, and assigning a label to each of the road graphs in each of the groups…
selecting one label…
merging a first road graph…
selecting a different label…
extracting a plurality”:
1. A computer-implemented method for combining a plurality of road graphs that partially overlap with an adjacent area, the method comprising:
an acquisition step of acquiring a plurality of road graphs extracted from a
plurality of segmented images obtained by dividing a road image of a region of interest into subregions that partially overlap with adjacent sub-regions;;
a labeling step of grouping the plurality of road graphs into groups, and assigning a label to each of the road graphs in each of the groups;
a merging step of selecting one label and executing, in parallel for the groups,1 a process of merging a first road graph to which the selected label is assigned and a second road graph adjacent to the first road graph,
wherein the merging step is repeated, with selecting a different label in each repetition, until all of the plurality of road graphs are merged;
wherein the merging step includes:
extracting a plurality of edges that overlap each other in a region where the first road graph and the second road graph overlap,
scoring each of the overlapping edges based on a distance between the
edge and a region center and an edge length, and
maintaining an edge having a highest score among the overlapping edges
and deleting other overlapping edges.
Re claim 4:
“acquiring the plurality…images obtained by dividing…
performing a merging process that merges road graphs…
the road graph groups are generated by grouping the plurality of road graphs in mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive manner…
performing a merging process that merges road graphs…
extracting a plurality”:
4. A computer-implemented method for combining a plurality of road graphs that are aligned in a first direction and a second direction and partially overlap with an adjacent area, the method comprising:
an acquisition step of acquiring the plurality of road graphs, the plurality of road graphs being extracted from a plurality of segmented road images obtained by dividing a road image of a region of interest into sub-regions, the road image being a satellite image or an aerial image, and each sub-region partially overlapping with an adjacent sub-region;
a first merging step of performing a merging process that merges road graphs in parallel for each first group in road graph groups, the road graph groups are generated by grouping the plurality of road graphs in mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive manner and have a same shape; and
a second merging step of performing a merging process that merges road graphs in parallel for each second group the road graph groups,
wherein the first group and the second group have a same shape, and a boundary of the first group and a boundary of the second group are different for the first direction and the second direction,
a third merging step of extracting23a plurality of edges that overlap each other in a region where adjacent road graphs overlap, scoring each of the overlapping edges based on a distance between the edge and a region center and an edge length, and maintaining an edge having a highest score among the overlapping edges and deleting other overlapping edges.
Step 2A, prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (“executing” of claim 1 and “in parallel” of claim 4) do not improve the functioning (scalability4) of a computer in view of applicant’s disclosure [0004][0006] [0014]:
PNG
media_image3.png
502
926
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements (computer stuff: “executing” of claim 1 and “in parallel” of claim 4 and “road graphs”) considered individually or in combination with the abstract adhere to the conventional in view of applicant’s disclosure’s background [0001][0002][0012]:
PNG
media_image4.png
1252
940
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0012] The road graph extraction unit 115 extracts the road graph from each segmented image. Road graph extraction can be performed using known techniques such as Sat2Graph (https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.09547), which infers a road graph from an image using graph tensor encoding. The road graph extraction process can be executed in parallel for each segmented image and is therefore scalable. A road graph consists of multiple road edges (hereinafter simply referred to as edges) and multiple intersection nodes (hereinafter simply referred to as nodes). An edge is a line segment corresponding to a plurality of points on a road. A node is an endpoint of an edge, and one node is connected to one or more edges.
MPEP 2106.07(a) Formulating a Rejection For Lack of Subject Matter Eligibility [R-07.2022]
II. WHEN MAKING A REJECTION, EXPLAIN WHY THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM ELEMENTS DO NOT RESULT IN THE CLAIM AS A WHOLE INTEGRATING THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OR AMOUNTING TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION (STEP 2A PRONG TWO AND STEP 2B), last para:
In the event a rejection is made, it is a best practice for the examiner to consult the specification (fig. 1B and [0004]: “improve…the process of creating5 a road graph6” & [0006]: “creating7 road graphs…can be improved” & [0013]: 1st S: “to8 create a road graph” & [0043] : “create a new node”:fig. 3:S309) to determine if there are elements (said “creating a road graph”) that could be added to the claim to make it eligible. If so, the examiner should identify those elements in the Office action and suggest them as a way to overcome the rejection.
PNG
media_image5.png
264
582
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
930
599
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 6: “buffer”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 7: 1st para: “construction”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 7: 2nd para: “generating”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 7: 2nd para: “create”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicants state in page 8, 1st and 2nd paragraphs:
Claim 1, as amended, recites "an acquisition step of acquiring a plurality of road graphs extracted from a plurality of segmented images obtained by dividing a road image of a region of interest into sub-regions that partially overlap with adjacent sub-regions."
GUO does not disclose this limitation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since GUO (CN 115424435 A) teaches:
an acquisition step (“for the specific acquisition of the road data, step 201”, pg. 13, penult para) of acquiring9 a plurality of10 road (likewise “relation sub-”, pg. 22, 4th txt blk) graphs extracted from a plurality of segmented images obtained by dividing a road image (or likewise dividing image-data into an “image”-“subset”11, machine translation II, pg. 18, 2nd text blk: fig. 2:205: “subset of test data”) of a region of interest12 (or likewise: “updating…by multiplying…the weight13”, machine translation II, pg. 16, 1st txt blk: fig. 2:207: “updated information”) into subregions (or likewise separating sub-graphs comprising cross-link road data via “the node in the to-be-detected14 road relational graph15 is cross-link road data“, pg. 4, last para, wherein “link represents a section16 of path”, machine translation II, pg. 2, last para) that partially overlap17 (or likewise paths that “cross”18, machine translation II mpg. 11, 2nd txt blk, linking roads) with adjacent sub-regions (or likewise “dividing the road network into multiple sections” ,pg. 10, last txt blk: or dividing into a “triplet”-“link”-subset”),
Applicants state in page 8, 3rd para:
Accordingly, GUO acquires road data from a database of stored road link information and screens the data by length and angle criteria. GUO does not disclose "acquiring a plurality of road graphs extracted from a plurality of segmented images obtained by dividing a road image of a region of interest into sub-regions that partially overlap with adjacent sub-regions" as recited in the claim. GUO contains no disclosure of a road image, of dividing a road image into subregions, of sub-regions that partially overlap with adjacent sub-regions, or of extracting road graphs from segmented images.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since GUO discloses a road image (or likewise “road relational graph1920”, machine translation II, abstract.).
Applicants state in page 8, 3rd para:
Accordingly, GUO acquires road data from a database of stored road link information and screens the data by length and angle criteria. GUO does not disclose "acquiring a plurality of road graphs extracted from a plurality of segmented images obtained by dividing a road image of a region of interest into sub-regions that partially overlap with adjacent sub-regions" as recited in the claim. GUO contains no disclosure of a road image, of dividing a road image into subregions, of sub-regions that partially overlap with adjacent sub-regions, or of extracting road graphs from segmented images.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since GUO discloses dividing a road image (or likewise “the road graph training data subset21…to obtain the…link”, wherein a “link represent a section22 of path23”, machine translation II, pg. 21, 1st txt blk & page 2, last text blk).
Applicants state in page 8, 3rd para:
Accordingly, GUO acquires road data from a database of stored road link information and screens the data by length and angle criteria. GUO does not disclose "acquiring a plurality of road graphs extracted from a plurality of segmented images obtained by dividing a road image of a region of interest into sub-regions that partially overlap with adjacent sub-regions" as recited in the claim. GUO contains no disclosure of a road image, of dividing a road image into subregions, of sub-regions that partially overlap with adjacent sub-regions, or of extracting road graphs from segmented images.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since GUO discloses sub-regions that partially overlap24 with adjacent sub-regions (or likewise a region-subdivision going over another link via a “cross-25link road”, abstract, wherein a “link represent a section26 of path27”, machine translation II, page 2, last text blk, as shown in fig. 1: link “b” overlapping/crossing over adjacent region-link “c”:
PNG
media_image7.png
369
505
media_image7.png
Greyscale
).
Applicants state in page 8, 3rd para:
Accordingly, GUO acquires road data from a database of stored road link information and screens the data by length and angle criteria. GUO does not disclose "acquiring a plurality of road graphs extracted from a plurality of segmented images obtained by dividing a road image of a region of interest into sub-regions that partially overlap with adjacent sub-regions" as recited in the claim. GUO contains no disclosure of a road image, of dividing a road image into subregions, of sub-regions that partially overlap with adjacent sub-regions, or of extracting road graphs from segmented images.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since GUO discloses extracting road graphs from segmented images (or likewise extracting different subgraphs from image-graphs made of link-secition via “extracting… each road relation”, translation II, pg. 23, last txt blk to page 24, 1st txt blk, wherein a “different road relation sub-graph represents different road relation. The road relationship with the above relationship is shown in FIG. 3.”, pg. 30, 3rd txt blk:
PNG
media_image8.png
811
970
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 8: last para: “buffer”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 9: 3rd para, 1st S: “spatial line”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 9: 3rd para, 2nd S: “spatial extent…buffer…spatial position”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants state on page 9, 3rd para:
Accordingly, in GUO, each "side" (edge) represents a categorical relationship between two triplet-nodes, not a spatial line segment on a road. GUO's edges have no spatial extent to which a "buffer of a predetermined size" could be added, no measurable "edge length" as recited in the claim, and no spatial position from which a "distance between the edge and a region center" could be computed. GUO does not disclose "a region center" of a road graph anywhere in its disclosure. GUO does not disclose "maintaining an edge having a highest score among the overlapping edges and deleting other overlapping edges" as recited in the claim. The reference does not disclose the amended limitations of the merging step.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since GUO discloses and edge vector wherein the vector comprises as arrow length, which is proportional to the magnitude:
scoring each (edge feature-vector) of the overlapping edges (at fig. 2:205) based on a distance (or likewise an “edge”-“vector”, translation II, pg. 17, 3rd txt blk) between2829 the (road-relation) edge (forming said edge feature vector) and an edge length (or said likewise “edge”-”vector”30, pg. 17, 3rd txt blk) , and
Applicants state on page 9, 3rd para:
Accordingly, in GUO, each "side" (edge) represents a categorical relationship between two triplet-nodes, not a spatial line segment on a road. GUO's edges have no spatial extent to which a "buffer of a predetermined size" could be added, no measurable "edge length" as recited in the claim, and no spatial position from which a "distance between the edge and a region center" could be computed. GUO does not disclose "a region center" of a road graph anywhere in its disclosure. GUO does not disclose "maintaining an edge having a highest score among the overlapping edges and deleting other overlapping edges" as recited in the claim. The reference does not disclose the amended limitations of the merging step.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since GUO teaches a region center (or likewise middle-region, which anything occurs, prevails, or dominates, via “the middle link”, pg. 19, 3rd txt blk, wherein a “link represent a section31 of path32”, translation II: page 2, last text blk, as shown in fig. 3:
PNG
media_image8.png
811
970
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, page 9, 3rd paragraph filed 7/7/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 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 35 USC 103:
Claim(s) 1,2,3,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO et al. (CN 115424435 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II further in view of TANG et al. (CN 11213154 A) with SEARCH machine translation, wherein TANG teaches:
TANG teach the difference of claim 1 of:
scoring (each of the overlapping edges based on a distance between3334 the edge and an edge length)35 (or likewise a “score”, pg. 8 , last txt blk:
mobile platform when determining the target lane set from the hypothetical lane set, it can firstly determine if score corresponding to each hypothetical lane line in the hypothetical lane set, wherein the hypothesis value for representing the possibility corresponding to the size of the hypothetical lane line as the actual lane line, the assumed value is determined according to a configured weight value of the local lane line assuming that the lane line, after determining the hypothetical value corresponding to each hypothetical lane line, can determine the target lane sets from the hypothesized lane set based on the assumed value. wherein, the hypothesis score satisfying the preset assumed lane in score threshold is determined as the target lane, so as to form the target lane set.), and
maintaining (an edge having) a highest score (among the overlapping edges) 36(or likewise “memory37 is used for storing…the target lane set from …the highest score, lane target lane”, machine translation, page 4, last blk & page 5, 1st txt blk & pg. 18, 1st txt blk).
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 10: 4th para, 2nd S: “spatial road graphs aligned in first and38 second directions”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In contrast, claim 4’s preamble39 says “road graphs that are aligned40 in a first direction 41 nd para).
Like the rejection of claim 1, claim 4 is rejected:
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO et al. (CN 115424435 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II further in view of TANG et al. (CN 11213154 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 1,2,3,5 further in view of HUBERMAN (US 2022/0383744 A1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO et al. (CN 115424435 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II further in view of TANG et al. (CN 11213154 A) with SEARCH machine translation.
PNG
media_image9.png
230
357
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Re 1., GUO teaches A computer-implemented method for combining a plurality of road graphs that partially overlap with an adjacent area, the method comprising42:
an acquisition step (“for the specific acquisition of the road data, step 201”, pg. 13, penult para) of acquiring43 a plurality of44 road (likewise “relation sub-”, pg. 22, 4th txt blk) graphs extracted from a plurality of segmented images obtained by dividing a road image (or likewise dividing image-data into an “image”-“subset”45, machine translation II, pg. 18, 2nd text blk: fig. 2:205: “subset of test data”) of a region of interest46 (or likewise: “updating…by multiplying…the weight47”, machine translation II, pg. 16, 1st txt blk: fig. 2:207: “updated information”) into subregions (or likewise separating sub-graphs comprising cross-link road data via “the node in the to-be-detected48 road relational graph49 is cross-link road data“, pg. 4, last para, wherein “link represents a section50 of path”, machine translation II, pg. 2, last para) that partially overlap51 (or likewise paths that “cross”52, machine translation II mpg. 11, 2nd txt blk, linking roads) with adjacent sub-regions (or likewise “dividing the road network into multiple sections” ,pg. 10, last txt blk: or dividing into a “triplet”-“link”-subset”), ; (via figs 2,3,1:
PNG
media_image10.png
799
972
media_image10.png
Greyscale
fig. 3:sub-graphs & fig. 1: link-subset “c_link” and link-subset “c’_link”:
PNG
media_image11.png
376
516
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
647
1130
media_image12.png
Greyscale
);
a labeling step of grouping (via “each”, “cross link road data”- “label” “triplet”, pg. 9 last txt blk: figure 3 looks like cross-links53 or a molecule) the plurality of road graphs into (square-atom-link) groups, and assigning a label (via said “label” “triplet”)
to each of the road graphs (said fig. 3:block-graphs: square-dot-atoms inside said molecule) in each of the (square) groups
PNG
media_image13.png
647
1130
media_image13.png
Greyscale
;
a merging step of selecting one label (or likewise resulting in “the selected triplet”, pg. 11, last txt blk, “corresponding to the label54”, pg. 9 last txt blk: fig. 3: “same road type”) and executing55 56nd txt blk) to the first road graph (square-dot-atoms resulting in said molecule:
PNG
media_image14.png
647
1130
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
wherein the merging step is repeated (“repeatedly”, pg. 21, last txt blk), with selecting a different label in each repetition, until all of the plurality of road graphs are merged (via fig. 5:
PNG
media_image15.png
808
1122
media_image15.png
Greyscale
);
wherein the merging step includes:
extracting a plurality of edges (or likewise extracting edge feature vectors via “extracting…each road relation”, machine translation II, pg. 40, 4th txt blk, resulting in “the characteristic vector of the edge is used for representing the road relation between two triad groups”, machine translation II, 3rd txt blk : fig. 2: 205, 207: “feature vector”, machine translation II, page 22, 2nd txt blk & pg. 27, 2nd txt blk) that overlap each other in a region where the first road graph and the second road graph overlap
PNG
media_image10.png
799
972
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
scoring each (edge feature-vector) of the overlapping edges (at fig. 2:205) based on a distance (or likewise an “edge”-“vector”, pg. 17, 3rd txt blk) between5758 the (road-relation) edge (forming said edge feature vector) and an edge length (or said likewise “edge”-”vector”59, pg. 17, 3rd txt blk) , and
maintaining an (road-relation) edge having a highest score among the overlapping edges (feature-vectors)
PNG
media_image14.png
647
1130
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
GUO does not teach the difference of claim 1 of:
scoring (each of the overlapping edges based on a distance between6061 the edge and an edge length)62 , and
maintaining (an edge having) a highest score (among the overlapping edges) 63.
TANG teach the difference of claim 1 of:
scoring (each of the overlapping edges based on a distance between6465 the edge and an edge length)66 (or likewise a “score”, pg. 8 , last txt blk:
mobile platform when determining the target lane set from the hypothetical lane set, it can firstly determine if score corresponding to each hypothetical lane line in the hypothetical lane set, wherein the hypothesis value for representing the possibility corresponding to the size of the hypothetical lane line as the actual lane line, the assumed value is determined according to a configured weight value of the local lane line assuming that the lane line, after determining the hypothetical value corresponding to each hypothetical lane line, can determine the target lane sets from the hypothesized lane set based on the assumed value. wherein, the hypothesis score satisfying the preset assumed lane in score threshold is determined as the target lane, so as to form the target lane set.), and
maintaining (an edge having) a highest score (among the overlapping edges) 67(or likewise “memory68 is used for storing…the target lane set from …the highest score, lane target lane”, machine translation, page 4, last blk & page 5, 1st txt blk & pg. 18, 1st txt blk).
Since GUO suggests lane number or others similar thereto via page 15, 4th txt blk:
Link also is a section of road, in the map navigation application, usually according to the attribute information of the road (such as length, name, lane number, road grade, road, speed, direction, the city and so on) to divide the existing road network to obtain different link section. The specific dividing method can refer to the related art method, which will not be repeated here.
one of skill in the art could or would have done is refer to other similar lane numbers or the like (such as a forking lane set) and thus make GUO’s be as TANG’s seeing in the change goodness via TANG, pg. 10, 2nd txt blk & fig. 2 showing two common lanes:
Therefore, in order to better detecting some of the non-common lane problem, to provide a more versatile lane detection method can generate local lane from the lane FIG set, and according to the local lane congregation constructing multiple hypothetical lane, as the undetermined selection of target lane line, then lane set determined from the assumed target lane set, so as to better fit for many kinds of lane scene and improving the versatility.
PNG
media_image16.png
1115
779
media_image16.png
Greyscale
via explicit, creative, routine, inferential Supreme Court steps, A,B,C:
A) create a lane detection program based on GUO’s fig. 4:
A1) create code at step 401 calling/returning from a target lane set69 determination program
A2) at step 401 create the road relationship diagram/graph based on the target lane set determination program:
PNG
media_image17.png
492
960
media_image17.png
Greyscale
B) create the target lane set determination program based on TANG’s fig. 3
PNG
media_image18.png
690
1119
media_image18.png
Greyscale
C) see what happens (I foresee goodness:
Therefore, in order to better detecting some of the non-common lane problem, to provide a more versatile lane detection method can generate local lane from the lane FIG set, and according to the local lane congregation constructing multiple hypothetical lane, as the undetermined selection of target lane line, then lane set determined from the assumed target lane set, so as to better fit for many kinds of lane scene (such as GUO’s “navigation scene”, pg. 17, 3rd txt b blk) and improving the versatility.)
Re 2., GUO of the combination of GUO-TANG teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein each of the groups contains
(C) 3 x 370 (&)
(D) road (or likewise said five “road relation sub-graph”, pg. 22, 4th txt blk, blocks in fig. 3)
graphs71 (as five road sub-graph blocks mapped to Markush alternative (D): the claimed “3 x 3 road graphs” is interpreted as alternative language—"3 x 3 graphs” OR “road graphs” {as shown by the sub-graphs in fig. 3} under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2)72,
wherein the label is assigned according to a position (via said “the adjacent ternary group position”, pg. 15, 2nd txt blk) within a group,
wherein the second graphs (square-dot-atoms resulting in said molecule) include73
(A) eight-neighbor (&)
(B) road (or likewise said five “road relation sub-graph”, pg. 22, 4th txt blk, blocks in fig. 3: a road-system in graph-diagram form)74
graphs (via fig. 3: said graphing square-dot-atoms resulting in said molecule: mapped Markush alternative (B): the claimed “eight-neighbor road graphs” is interpreted as alternative language—"eight-neighbor graphs” OR “road graphs” {as shown by the sub-graphs in fig. 3} under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2) of the first graphs (said square-dot-atoms resulting in said molecule via fig. 3:
PNG
media_image14.png
647
1130
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Re 3., GUO discloses The method according to claim 2,
wherein the merging step is executed with selecting a first label corresponding to one of the 3 x 3 road graphs, and then
the merging step is repeated with selecting a second (“attribute75 information”, pg. 23, 3rd txt blk) label (fig.3: “Upstream and downstream relationships”) corresponding to a road graph whose position in both a first direction (in fig. 3) and a second direction (in fig. 3) in the group is different (as shown in fig. 3) from that of the road graph with the first label.
PNG
media_image19.png
1094
1149
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Re 5., GUO discloses An information processing apparatus (or likewise a “device”, pg. 9, last txt blk) 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.
Claim(s) 2,3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO et al. (CN 115424435 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II further in view of TANG et al. (CN 11213154 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 1,2,3,5 further in view of ZHAO et al. (CN 111932553 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image20.png
230
424
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Re 2., GUO of the combination of GUO-TANG teaches, under the non-broadest reasonable interpretation or a narrow subset of the broadest reasonable interpretation, The method according to claim 1,
wherein each of the groups contains (C) 3 x 376 (D) road graphs77(the claimed “3x3 road graphs” is interpreted in the alternative: “3x3 graphs” or “road graphs” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2),
wherein the label is assigned according to a position (via said “the adjacent ternary group position”, pg. 15, 2nd txt blk) within a group,
wherein the second graphs (square-dot-atoms resulting in said molecule) include78
(A) eight-neighbor (&)
(B) road (as shown in fig. 3: a road-system in graph-diagram form)79
graphs (as shown in fig. 3: mapped Markush alternative (B): said square-dot-atoms resulting in said molecule: the claimed “eight-neighbor road” is interpreted as alternative language: “eight-neighbor graphs” OR “road graphs” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2) of the first graphs (said square-dot-atoms resulting in said molecule (via fig. 3:
PNG
media_image14.png
647
1130
media_image14.png
Greyscale
GUO does not teach, under the non-broadest reasonable interpretation, the difference of claim 2 of:
3 x 3 (road graphs)80.
ZHAO teach the difference of claim 2 of:
(“Step 33: the fusion characteristic graph through a”) 3 x 3 (“convolution to obtain multi-scale and with attention characteristic graph“, pg. 6, last txt blk) (road graphs)81: fig. 10:
PNG
media_image21.png
1090
1035
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Since GUO teaches a graph and deep learning, one of skill in the art of graphs and deep learning can make GUO’s be as ZHAO’s seeing in the change “The deeper network structure can better extract complex features in the remote sensing image, and because of the residual structure, preventing the degradation problem when the network is too deep.”, ZHAO, pg. 12, last txt blk.
Re 3., GUO of the combination of GUO-TANG-ZHAO teaches The method according to claim 2,
wherein the merging step is executed with selecting a first label corresponding to one of the 3 x 3 road graphs, and then
the merging step is repeated with selecting a second (“attribute82 information”, pg. 23, 3rd txt blk) label (fig.3: “Upstream and downstream relationships”) corresponding to a road graph whose position in both a first direction (in fig. 3) and a second direction (in fig. 3) in the group is different (as shown in fig. 3) from that of the road graph with the first label.
PNG
media_image19.png
1094
1149
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO et al. (CN 115424435 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II further in view of TANG et al. (CN 11213154 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 1,2,3,5 further in view of HUBERMAN (US 2022/0383744 A1):
PNG
media_image22.png
231
424
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected/interpreted like claim 1:
Re 4., GUO & TANG of the combination of GUO-TANG teaches A computer-implemented method for combining a plurality of road graphs83 that are aligned in a first direction and a second direction and partially overlap with an adjacent area, the method comprising:
an acquisition step of acquiring the plurality of road graphs, the plurality of road
graphs being extracted from a plurality of segmented road images obtained by dividing a road image of a region of interest into sub-regions, the road image being an aerial image (or likewise “image generated by…sensors installed in…top84 position”, TANG, pg. 9, 1st txt blk) , and each sub-region partially overlapping with an adjacent sub-region (via TANG’s fig. 1: “Lane line aerial view”:
PNG
media_image23.png
290
1120
media_image23.png
Greyscale
;
a first merging step (comprised by “a plurality of steps”, pg. 8, 1st txt blk) of performing a merging process that merges road graphs in parallel (via “parallel processing”, pg. 34, 1st txt blk) for each first group in road graph groups, the road graph groups are generated (as shown in fig. 3) by grouping the plurality of road graphs in85
mutually exclusive86 and collectively exhaustive87 (or likewise “performing supervised learning until the network convergence”, pg. 15, last txt blk)88manner (of converged learning mapped to Markush alternative (B): the claimed “mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive manner” is interpreted as alternative language: --"mutually exclusive manner” OR “collectively exhaustive manner”—under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4) and have a same shape; and
a second merging step (comprised by “a plurality of steps”, pg. 8, 1st txt blk) of performing a merging process that merges road graphs in parallel for each second group the road graph groups,
89 (understood to one of skill in the art of roads),
a third merging step of extracting a plurality of edges that overlap each other in a
region where adjacent road graphs overlap, scoring each of the overlapping edges based on a distance between the edge and a region center and an edge length, and maintaining an edge having a highest score among the overlapping edges and deleting other overlapping edges.
GUO and TANG of the combination of GUO-TANG does not teach the difference of claim 4 of:
A’) 90
A) a same shape…91
B)
C) of the first group)92
D) )
HUBERMAN teach the difference of claim 4 of:
A’) (or likewise (1) Global Navigation Satellite (GNSS) key image 800 via “The local map sections of sparse map 800 may be stored with a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) key as an index to the database of sparse map 800.” [0024] penult S & (2) “using external sources of information, such as satellite images” [0278] 2nd S)
A) a same shape (fig. 34B:3442: “same shape”, [0500] last S, square)…93
B)
PNG
media_image24.png
644
983
media_image24.png
Greyscale
C) of the first group)94 and
D) )
PNG
media_image25.png
789
1004
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Since GUO teaches road graphs, one of skill in the art of road graphs can make GUO’s be as HUBERMAN’s seeing in the change “Subsequent drives may be used for further model improvements and in order to accommodate infrastructure changes.” HUBERMAN [0218] last S:
PNG
media_image26.png
1883
1150
media_image26.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action:
Citation
Relevance
IDS cited Buchner et al. (Learning and Aggregating Lane Graphs for Urban Automated Driving)
Buchner teaches “overlapping95 lane”-“graphs”96 and “aerial imagery”-“graph estimation”, abstract:
Lane graph estimation is an essential and highly challenging task in automated driving and HD map learning. Existing methods using either onboard or aerial imagery struggle with complex lane topologies, out-of-distribution scenarios,
or significant occlusions in the image space. Moreover, merging overlapping lane graphs to obtain consistent largescale graphs remains difficult. To overcome these challenges, we propose a novel bottom-up approach to lane graph estimation from aerial imagery that aggregates multiple overlapping graphs into a single consistent graph. Due to its modular design, our method allows us to address two complementary tasks: predicting ego-respective successor lane graphs from arbitrary vehicle positions using a graph neural network and aggregating these predictions into a consistent global lane graph. Extensive experiments on a large-scale lane graph dataset demonstrate that our approach yields highly accurate lane graphs, even in regions with severe occlusions. The presented approach to graph aggregation proves to eliminate inconsistent predictions while increasing the overall graph quality. We make our large-scale urban lane graph dataset and code publicly available at http://urbanlanegraph.cs.uni-freiburg.de.
PNG
media_image27.png
931
971
media_image27.png
Greyscale
as the closest to claim 1’s “edges that overlap each other” and claim 4’s “aerial image”.
IDS cited Giannoula et al. (High‑performance and balanced parallel graph coloring on multicore platforms)
Giannoula teaches “road_usa (usa)” as a “Graph name” (Table 1, pg. 6396) and “overlapped” via page 6389, 1st para:
PNG
media_image28.png
331
695
media_image28.png
Greyscale
Figure 10 provides an example of the aforementioned scenario in graph coloring. Consider the scenario where thread T1 attempts to assign a color to the vertex v, and thread T2 attempts to assign a color to the vertex x. Thread T1 needs to atomi cally read the colors of the adjacent vertices of the vertex v, i.e., u, r, z vertices, and write the corresponding color to the vertex v. Similarly, Thread T2 needs to atomi cally read the colors of the adjacent vertices of the vertex x, i.e., u vertex, and write the corresponding color to the vertex x. With HTM (Fig. 10a), T1’s and T2’s trans actions can be executed and committed concurrently: neither the write-set of T1’s transaction does not conflict with the read-set of T2’s transaction, nor the write-set of T2’s transaction does not conflict with the read-set of T1’s transaction. Therefore, even though T1’s and T2’s critical sections have overlapped data access sets, i.e., both of them include the color of the vertex u in their read-sets, they can be executed concurrently with HTM. In contrast, with fine-grained locking, T1’s and T2’s critical sections are executed sequentially (Fig. 10b): threads T1 and T2 compete to acquire the same lock, i.e., the lock associated with the vertex u, in order to execute their critical sections. Thus, only one of threads T1 and T2 will acquire the lock, and will proceed. Given that T1’s and T2’s critical sections have overlapped data access sets, i.e., both of them include the color of the vertex u in their read-sets, they will be executed sequentially when using the fine-grained locking scheme for synchroniza tion. As a result, we conclude that in graph coloring HTM can provide higher levels of parallelism compared to fine-grained locking.
as the closest to claim 1’s “road graph” and “edges that overlap each other”.
Jordi Aguilar Larruy (Revisiting Graph Sampling for map comparison)
Aguilar teaches “overlaid…graph…edge…score” with the highest score at the road map intersections of fig. 4:
PNG
media_image29.png
540
989
media_image29.png
Greyscale
When comparing two maps, two main factors have to be evaluated: the geometry and the topology. Geometry takes into account if a map is overlaid over the second one, that is, if a road (or a segment of a road) is represented in both maps. Topology cares about the connections of the graph, the degree of the intersections, the cycles of the graph or the paths between two points of the graph. However, before diving into how does the evaluation metric have to deal with this topics we will focus on what is the degree of importance that the evaluation metric has to put into each part of the map. Road maps are composed of streets, highways, avenues, streets where each direction has a different edge... One may think that from a practical point of view, streets that are crowded must be more relevant when comparing two maps, or that attention must be paid to areas with a high density of roads. On the other hand, we could make no assumptions about each road of the map and just evaluate them in function of their length. Other criteria may be that each edge has to have the same importance regardless of their length, or that each edge has to have a weight proportional to the time it takes for a vehicle to cross it: this way, a very long highway would have the same importance as a handful of short and complex streets of a city center, since, at the end, it takes the same time to complete these two trajectories. In this work, we will make no assumptions about the features of the edges, and we are going to consider that the length is the only thing that matters: one edge that is half the length of another should have half the weight in the final score.
as the closest to claim 1’s “edges that overlap each other” and “scoring each of the overlapping edges based on a distance between the edge and a region center and an edge length”.
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 DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
1 This comma phrase is non-restrictive and thus non-limiting: in contrast, see claim 4.
2 Applicant’s disclosure [0068] The above embodiments are examples only, and the present disclosure may be modified and implemented as appropriate without departing from the gist thereof, wherein modify is defined: to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend, wherein form is defined: Grammar. a word, part of a word, or group of words forming a construction that recurs in various contexts in a language with relatively constant meaning. (Dictionary.com)
3 extract: Mathematics. to determine (the root of a quantity that has a single root), wherein root is defined: A solution to an equation. For example, a root of the equation x 2 − 4 = 0 is 2, since 2 2 − 4 = 0. (Dictionary.com)
4 scalability: the ability of something, esp a computer system, to adapt to increased demands (Dictionary.com)
5 create: to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. (Dictionary.com)
6 Note that “graph” is an additional element. Thus “graph” is not an abstract idea. Thus “graph” does not recite an equation, wherein graph is defined/taken by the examiner as most consistent with applicant’s disclosure to mean: maths a structure represented by a diagram consisting of points (vertices) joined by lines (edges) (Dictionary.com)
7 create: (tr) to cause to come into existence (Dictionary.com)
8 to: (used for expressing a resulting state or condition), wherein result is defined: to spring, arise, or proceed as a consequence of actions, circumstances, premises, etc.; be the outcome, wherein arise is defined: to come into being, action, or notice; originate; appear; spring up. (Dictionary.com)
9 -ing of (acquiring): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb (acquire) or its (acquire’s) result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ). (Dictionary.com)
10 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association). (Dictionary.com)
11 subset: a set that is a part of a larger set, where part is defined: a portion or division of a whole that is separate or distinct; piece, fragment, fraction, or section; constituent. (Dictionary.com)
12 Interest: concern; importance. (Dictionary.com)
13 weight: importance, moment, consequence, or effective influence.
14detect: to extract information from (an electromagnetic wave), wherein extract is defined: to remove or separate (Dictionary.com)
15 graph: a diagram representing a system of connections or interrelations among two or more things by a number of distinctive dots, lines, bars, etc, wherein diagram is defined: a drawing or plan that outlines and explains the parts, operation, etc., of something., wherein drawing is defined: a graphic representation by lines of an object or idea, as with a pencil; a delineation of form without reference to color, wherein representation is defined: a picture, figure, statue, etc., wherein picture is defined: any visible image, however produced. (Dictionary.com)
16 section: one of a number of parts that can be fitted together to make a whole, wherein part is defined: usually parts. a region, quarter, or district. (Dictionary.com)
17 overlap: to lap over (something else or each other); extend over and cover a part of; imbricate. (Dictionary.com)
18 cross: lying or passing crosswise or across each other; athwart; transverse, wherein pass is defined: to go across or over (a stream, threshold, etc.); cross..
19 graph: a diagram representing a system of connections or interrelations among two or more things by a number of distinctive dots, lines, bars, etc, wherein diagram is defined: a drawing or plan that outlines and explains the parts, operation, etc., of something, wherein drawing is defined: a graphic representation by lines of an object or idea, as with a pencil; a delineation of form without reference to color, wherein representation is defined: a picture, figure, statue, etc., wherein picture is defined: any visible image, however produced. (Dictionary.com: AMERICAN)
20 graph: maths a structure represented by a diagram consisting of points (vertices) joined by lines (edges), wherein diagram is defined: maths a pictorial representation of a quantity or of a relationship, wherein representation is defined: the act or an instance of representing or the state of being represented, wherein represent is defined: to present an image of through the medium of a picture or sculpture; portray (Dictionary.com: BRITISH)
21 subset: a set that is a part of a larger set, wherein part is defined: a portion or division of a whole that is separate or distinct; piece, fragment, fraction, or section; constituent. (Dictionary.com)
22 section: a distinct part or subdivision of anything, as an object, country, community, class, or the like (Dictionary.com)
23 path: a way beaten, formed, or trodden by the feet of persons or animals, wherein way is defined: space for passing or advancing, wherein space is defined: the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur, wherein realm is defined: the region, sphere, or domain within which anything occurs, prevails, or dominates. (Dictionary.com)
24 overlap: to lap over (something else or each other); extend over and cover a part of; imbricate. (Dictionary.com)
25 cross-: a combining form of cross, used to indicate an interaction or exchange of two or more things (cross-addicted, cross-cultural, cross-pollination ), the extension across a space or the covering of a distance (cross-border, crosscountry ), or the passing across or perpendicular intersection with something (crossbar, crosscurrent ), wherein passing is defined: to go across or over (a stream, threshold, etc.); cross, wherein over is defined: so as to rest on or cover; on or upon, wherein across is defined: from one side to the other of, wherein to is defined: (used for expressing limit of movement or extension). (Dictionary.com)
26 section: a distinct part or subdivision of anything, as an object, country, community, class, or the like (Dictionary.com)
27 path: a way beaten, formed, or trodden by the feet of persons or animals, wherein way is defined: space for passing or advancing, wherein space is defined: the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur, wherein realm is defined: the region, sphere, or domain within which anything occurs, prevails, or dominates. (Dictionary.com)
28 between: among.
29 between: in the space separating (two points, objects, etc.). (Dictionary.com)
30 vector: Mathematics. a quantity possessing both magnitude and direction, represented by an arrow the direction of which indicates the direction of the quantity and the length of which is proportional to the magnitude. (Dictionary.com)
31 section: a distinct part or subdivision of anything, as an object, country, community, class, or the like (Dictionary.com)
32 path: a way beaten, formed, or trodden by the feet of persons or animals, wherein way is defined: space for passing or advancing, wherein space is defined: the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur, wherein realm is defined: the region, sphere, or domain within which anything occurs, prevails, or dominates. (Dictionary.com)
33 between: among.
34 between: in the space separating (two points, objects, etc.). (Dictionary.com)
35 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
36 The crossed text “does not limit” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 2nd para:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
37 memory: the act or fact of retaining and recalling impressions, facts, etc.; remembrance; recollection. (Dictionary.com)
38 and: (used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover. (Dictionary.com)
39 MPEP 2111.02 Effect of Preamble [R-07.2022]
II. PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE, 2nd para:
During examination, statements in the preamble (“for combining a plurality of road graphs that are aligned in a first direction”) reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02.
40 align: associated or affiliated with a particular group, cause, or ideology. (Dictionary.com) :this grammatical sense of “align” is taken to be the most consistent with applicant’s disclosure.
41 and: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
42 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: -ing (of “comprising” or ant “-ing” word in claims 1-5): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ).(Dictionary.com)
43 -ing of (acquiring): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb (acquire) or its (acquire’s) result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ). (Dictionary.com)
44 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association). (Dictionary.com)
45 subset: a set that is a part of a larger set, where part is defined: a portion or division of a whole that is separate or distinct; piece, fragment, fraction, or section; constituent. (Dictionary.com)
46 Interest: concern; importance. (Dictionary.com)
47 weight: importance, moment, consequence, or effective influence.
48detect: to extract information from (an electromagnetic wave), wherein extract is defined: to remove or separate (Dictionary.com)
49 graph: a diagram representing a system of connections or interrelations among two or more things by a number of distinctive dots, lines, bars, etc, wherein diagram is defined: a drawing or plan that outlines and explains the parts, operation, etc., of something., wherein drawing is defined: a graphic representation by lines of an object or idea, as with a pencil; a delineation of form without reference to color, wherein representation is defined: a picture, figure, statue, etc., wherein picture is defined: any visible image, however produced. (Dictionary.com)
50 section: one of a number of parts that can be fitted together to make a whole, wherein part is defined: usually parts. a region, quarter, or district. (Dictionary.com)
51 overlap: to lap over (something else or each other); extend over and cover a part of; imbricate. (Dictionary.com)
52 cross: lying or passing crosswise or across each other; athwart; transverse, wherein pass is defined: to go across or over (a stream, threshold, etc.); cross..
53 cross-link: a bond, atom, or group linking the chains of atoms in a polymer, protein, or other complex organic molecule. (Dictionary.com)
54 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: label: a slip of paper, cloth, or other material, marked or inscribed, for attachment to something to indicate its manufacturer, nature, ownership, destination, etc.., wherein mark is defined: to indicate or designate by or as if by marks, wherein designate is defined: to nominate or select for a duty, office, purpose, etc.; appoint; assign. (Dictionary.com)
55 comma: the punctuation mark(,) indicating a slight pause in the spoken sentence and used where there is a listing of items or to separate a nonrestrictive clause or phrase from a main clause (Dictionary.com)
56 This nonrestrictive phrase inside commas is not limiting under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1.
57 between: among.
58 between: in the space separating (two points, objects, etc.). (Dictionary.com)
59 vector: Mathematics. a quantity possessing both magnitude and direction, represented by an arrow the direction of which indicates the direction of the quantity and the length of which is proportional to the magnitude. (Dictionary.com)
60 between: among.
61 between: in the space separating (two points, objects, etc.). (Dictionary.com)
62 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
63 The crossed text “does not limit” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 2nd para:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
64 between: among.
65 between: in the space separating (two points, objects, etc.). (Dictionary.com)
66 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
67 The crossed text “does not limit” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 2nd para:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
68 memory: the act or fact of retaining and recalling impressions, facts, etc.; remembrance; recollection. (Dictionary.com)
69 set: a number, group, or combination of things of similar nature, design, or function. (Dictionary.com)
70 “3 X 3” appears more directed to being --3 X 3 graphs—(sounds better to the ear: 9 graphs) than a--3 x 3 road—(what is a 3 x 3 road? a 9 road?: does not pass the ear test)
71 The claimed “3 x 3 road graphs” appears as a subtle coordinate-adjective Markush element: [(C) (&) (D)], since the Markush alternative (D) is already taught, as Markush alternative (B) in claim 2, this Markush element [(C) (&) (D)] or equivalently [(D) (&) (C)] is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2.
72 Since Markush alternative (D) is taught, the Markush element [(C) (D)] is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2
73 Markush element of Markush alternatives follows: [(A) (&) (B)] or (B) (&) (A)]
74 given that Markush alternative (B) is taught, the Markush element [(A) (&) (B)] or [(B) (&) (A)] is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2
75 attribute: Grammar. a word or phrase (“Upstream and downstream relationships”) that is syntactically subordinate to another and serves to limit, identify, particularize, describe, or supplement the meaning of the form with which it is in construction. In the red house, red is an attribute of house, wherein describe is defined: to pronounce, as by a designating term, phrase, or the like; label. (Dictionary.com)
76 “3 X 3” appears more directed to being --3 X 3 graphs—(sounds better to the ear: 9 graphs) than a--3 x 3 road—(what is a 3 x 3 road? a 9 road?)
77 The claimed “3 x 3 road graphs” appears as a subtle Markush element: [(C) (D)], since Markush alternative (D):“road graphs” is already taught this Markush element [(C)(D)] is taught making this 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 2 extra under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2.
78 Markush element of Markush alternatives follows: [(A) (&) (B)] or (B) (&) (A)]
79 given that Markush alternative (B) is taught, the Markush element [(A) (&) (B)] or [(B) (&) (A)] is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2
80 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
81 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
82 attribute: Grammar. a word or phrase (“Upstream and downstream relationships”) that is syntactically subordinate to another and serves to limit, identify, particularize, describe, or supplement the meaning of the form with which it is in construction. In the red house, red is an attribute of house, wherein describe is defined: to pronounce, as by a designating term, phrase, or the like; label. (Dictionary.com)
83 MEANING & PURPOSE: regarding whether “wherein” clauses are limiting, “for combining a plurality of road graphs” is the meaning and purpose (the main idea) of claim 4, wherein main idea is defined: the most important or central thought of a paragraph or larger section of text (claim 4), which tells the reader (patent examiner) what the text is about. (Dictionary.com)
84 top: the highest or loftiest point or part of anything on a slope; apex; summit, wherein lofty is defined: extending high in the air; of imposing height; towering. (Dictionary.com)
85 Markush element of Markush alternatives follows: [(A) and (B)] or [(B) and (A)]
86 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: mutually exclusive: of or relating to a situation involving two or more events, possibilities, etc., in which the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other, wherein etc is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too.(Dictionary.com)
87 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: exhaustive: exhausting exhausting a subject, topic, etc.; comprehensive; thorough, wherein exhausting is defined: to draw out all that is essential in (a subject, topic, etc.); treat or study thoroughly. (Dictiionary.com)
88 Given that Markush alternative (B) is taught, the Markush element [(A) and (B)] or [(B) and (A)] is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4.
89 The crossed text is not “a limitation in a claim… where the clause gave ‘meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps ‘ ” via MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019]
I. "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY"
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
90 crossed “
MPEP 2143. 03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024] of the broadest reasonable interpretation, 2nd para:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (“a satellite image or an aerial image”), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
91 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
92 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
93 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
94 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
95 overlap: to coincide in part with; have in common with, wherein in common is defined: Held equally, in joint possession or use, as in This land is held in common by all the neighbors . [Late 1300s]. (Dictionary.com)
96 graph: maths a structure represented by a diagram consisting of points (vertices) joined by lines (edges) (DIctioanry.com)
Prosecution Insights