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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/791,995 filed on 08/01/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 04/13/2026.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the RCE filed by the Applicant on 04/13/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 5th, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“13616(N)”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerges (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0027344 A1) in view of Uziel (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0162613 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Gerges teaches:
One or more processors comprising processing circuitry to: identify image data generated using one or more cameras of an ego-machine, the image data including a depiction of at least a portion of one or more toll signs;, (See (Gerges: Detailed Description – 38th-50th, 53rd-58th, and 119th-125th paragraphs))
whether to navigate in one or more toll lanes based at least on the image data;, (See (Gerges: Summary – 13th-22nd paragraphs))
Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
apply, to a vision-language model (VLM) of the ego-machine, a multimodal prompt comprising the image data representing the one or more toll signs and a text prompt to cause the VLM to generate one or more text responses determining, (See (Uziel: Summary – 4th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-59th, 68th-76th, and 80th-86th paragraphs))
and control one or more operations of the ego-machine based at least on the one or more text responses., (See (Uziel: Introduction – 3rd paragraph and Detailed Description – 33rd-39th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 2:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gerges further teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to initiate monitoring for the one or more toll signs, (See (Gerges: Detailed Description – 38th-50th, 53rd-58th, and 64th paragraphs))
Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
[…] based at least on the ego-machine entering a detected highway driving mode., (See (Uziel: Detailed Description – 32nd paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 4:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gerges further teaches:
[…] evaluate the image data representing the one or more toll signs in response to verifying legibility of the one or more toll signs., (See (Gerges: Detailed Description – 38th-50th, 53rd-60th, and 65th-68th paragraphs))
Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to apply the multimodal prompt to cause the VLM to, (See (Uziel: Summary – 4th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-59th, 68th-75th, and 80th-86th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 11:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing remote operations; a system for performing real-time streaming; a system for generating or presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more language models; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system implementing one or more vision language models (VLMs); a system for generating synthetic data; a system for generating synthetic data using AI; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources., (See (Uziel: Introduction – 4th-13th paragraphs paragraph and Detailed Description – 33rd-38th and 80th-86th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 12:
Gerges teaches:
A system comprising one or more processors to, (See (Gerges: Summary – 4th-5th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 119th-125th paragraphs))
whether to drive in one or more toll lanes based at least on image data representing one or more toll signs., (See (Gerges: Summary – 13th-22nd paragraphs and Detailed Description – 38th-50th and 53rd-58th paragraphs))
Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
control one or more operations of an ego- machine, (See (Uziel: Introduction – 3rd paragraph and Detailed Description – 35th-39th paragraphs))
based at least on applying, to a vision-language model (VLM) of the ego-machine, a multimodal prompt to generate one or more text responses determining, (See (Uziel: Summary – 4th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-59th, 68th-76th, and 80th-86th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 13:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12. Gerges further teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further to initiate monitoring for the one or more toll signs, (See (Gerges: Detailed Description – 38th-50th, 53rd-58th, and 64th paragraphs))
Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
[…] based at least on the ego-machine entering a detected highway driving mode., (See (Uziel: Detailed Description – 32nd paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 15:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12. Gerges further teaches:
[…] the image data representing the one or more toll signs in response to verifying legibility of the one or more toll signs., (See (Gerges: Detailed Description – 38th-50th, 53rd-60th, and 65th-68th paragraphs))
Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further to apply the multimodal prompt to cause the VLM to evaluate, (See (Uziel: Summary – 4th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-59th, 68th-75th, and 80th-86th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 18:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12. Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing remote operations; a system for performing real-time streaming; a system for generating or presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more language models; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system implementing one or more vision language models (VLMs); a system for generating synthetic data; a system for generating synthetic data using AI; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources., (See (Uziel: Introduction – 4th-13th paragraphs paragraph and Detailed Description – 33rd-38th and 80th-86th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 19:
Gerges teaches:
A method comprising:, (See (Gerges: Summary – 14th-22nd paragraphs))
evaluating a multimodal prompt comprising a representation of one or more signs detected in an environment exterior to the ego-machine,, (See (Gerges: Detailed Description – 38th-50th and 53rd-58th paragraphs))
Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
generating, based at least on a vision-language model (VLM) of an ego-machine, (See (Uziel: Summary – 4th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-59th, 68th-76th, and 80th-86th paragraphs))
one or more text responses determining whether to execute one or more navigational operations based at least on the one or more signs; and controlling one or more operations of the ego-machine based at least on the one or more text responses., (See (Uziel: Introduction – 3rd paragraph and Detailed Description – 33rd-39th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 20:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
The method of claim 19, wherein the method is performed by at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing remote operations; a system for performing real-time streaming; a system for generating or presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more language models; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system implementing one or more vision language models (VLMs); a system for generating synthetic data; a system for generating synthetic data using AI; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources., (See (Uziel: Introduction – 4th-13th paragraphs paragraph and Detailed Description – 33rd-38th and 80th-86th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Claims 3, 5-6, 8-10, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerges (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0027344 A1) in view of Uziel (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0162613 A1) in further view of Borras (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0099361 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gerges further teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to initiate monitoring for the one or more toll signs, (See (Gerges: Detailed Description – 38th-50th, 53rd-58th, and 64th paragraphs))
Gerges does not teach but Borras teaches:
[…] based at least on the ego-machine entering or approaching one or more geo-tagged locations., (See (Borras: Detailed Description – 84th-89th paragraphs, FIG. 19-21))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges in view of Uziel with these above aforementioned teachings from Borras in order to create a user-friendly environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Borras’s high accuracy geo-location system and method for mobile payment in order for an autonomous vehicle to determine whether to navigate toll lanes based on: entering or approaching geo-tagged locations, a list of upcoming exits of the toll lanes, a planned exit associated with an active mapping route, and a detected number of occupants of the autonomous vehicle. Combining Gerges and Borras would thus provide “a method and apparatus to improve location accuracy for a variety of vehicular-related applications.” (Borras: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 5:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gerges further teaches:
[…] based at least on verifying legibility of the one or more toll signs., (See (Gerges: Detailed Description – 38th-50th, 53rd-60th, and 65th-68th paragraphs))
Gerges does not teach but Borras teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to generate a list of one or more upcoming exits of the one or more toll lanes, (See (Borras: Detailed Description – 74th-76th, 84th, 94th-96th, and 116th-117th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges in view of Uziel with these above aforementioned teachings from Borras in order to create a user-friendly environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Borras’s high accuracy geo-location system and method for mobile payment in order for an autonomous vehicle to determine whether to navigate toll lanes based on: entering or approaching geo-tagged locations, a list of upcoming exits of the toll lanes, a planned exit associated with an active mapping route, and a detected number of occupants of the autonomous vehicle. Combining Gerges and Borras would thus provide “a method and apparatus to improve location accuracy for a variety of vehicular-related applications.” (Borras: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 5, wherein the text prompt of the multimodal prompt is further to cause the VLM to, (See (Uziel: Summary – 4th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-59th, 68th-75th, and 80th-86th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Gerges in view of Uziel does not teach but Borras teaches:
[…] determine whether to drive in the one or more toll lanes based at least on a list of one or more upcoming exits of the one or more toll lanes., (See (Borras: Detailed Description – 74th-76th, 84th, 94th-96th, and 116th-117th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges in view of Uziel with these above aforementioned teachings from Borras in order to create a user-friendly environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Borras’s high accuracy geo-location system and method for mobile payment in order for an autonomous vehicle to determine whether to navigate toll lanes based on: entering or approaching geo-tagged locations, a list of upcoming exits of the toll lanes, a planned exit associated with an active mapping route, and a detected number of occupants of the autonomous vehicle. Combining Gerges and Borras would thus provide “a method and apparatus to improve location accuracy for a variety of vehicular-related applications.” (Borras: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 8:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the text prompt of the multimodal prompt is further to cause the VLM to, (See (Uziel: Summary – 4th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-59th, 68th-75th, and 80th-86th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Gerges in view of Uziel does not teach but Borras teaches:
[…] determine whether to drive in the one or more toll lanes based at least on a planned exit associated with an active mapping route., (See (Borras: Detailed Description – 41st-47th, 56th-65th, 74th-84th, and 94th-96th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges in view of Uziel with these above aforementioned teachings from Borras in order to create a user-friendly environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Borras’s high accuracy geo-location system and method for mobile payment in order for an autonomous vehicle to determine whether to navigate toll lanes based on: entering or approaching geo-tagged locations, a list of upcoming exits of the toll lanes, a planned exit associated with an active mapping route, and a detected number of occupants of the autonomous vehicle. Combining Gerges and Borras would thus provide “a method and apparatus to improve location accuracy for a variety of vehicular-related applications.” (Borras: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 9:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gerges further teaches:
[…] determine a cost to drive on one or more upcoming segments of the one or more toll lanes […], (See (Gerges: Summary – 5th-19th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 77th-86th, 92nd-93rd, 101st-102nd, and 109th-110th paragraphs))
Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the text prompt of the multimodal prompt is further to cause the VLM to, (See (Uziel: Summary – 4th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-59th, 68th-75th, and 80th-86th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Gerges in view of Uziel does not teach but Borras teaches:
[…] based at least on a detected number of occupants of the ego-machine., (See (Borras: Detailed Description – 43rd, 47th, and 70th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges in view of Uziel with these above aforementioned teachings from Borras in order to create a user-friendly environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Borras’s high accuracy geo-location system and method for mobile payment in order for an autonomous vehicle to determine whether to navigate toll lanes based on: entering or approaching geo-tagged locations, a list of upcoming exits of the toll lanes, a planned exit associated with an active mapping route, and a detected number of occupants of the autonomous vehicle. Combining Gerges and Borras would thus provide “a method and apparatus to improve location accuracy for a variety of vehicular-related applications.” (Borras: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 10:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more operations of the ego- machine comprise, (See (Uziel: Introduction – 3rd paragraph and Detailed Description – 33rd-38th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Gerges in view of Uziel does not teach but Borras teaches:
[…] initiating a merge into or out of the one or more toll lanes., (See (Borras: Detailed Description – 94th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges in view of Uziel with these above aforementioned teachings from Borras in order to create a user-friendly environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Borras’s high accuracy geo-location system and method for mobile payment in order for an autonomous vehicle to determine whether to navigate toll lanes based on: entering or approaching geo-tagged locations, a list of upcoming exits of the toll lanes, a planned exit associated with an active mapping route, and a detected number of occupants of the autonomous vehicle. Combining Gerges and Borras would thus provide “a method and apparatus to improve location accuracy for a variety of vehicular-related applications.” (Borras: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 14:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12. Gerges further teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further to initiate monitoring for the one or more toll signs, (See (Gerges: Detailed Description – 38th-50th, 53rd-58th, and 64th paragraphs))
Gerges does not teach but Borras teaches:
[…] based at least on the ego-machine entering or approaching one or more geo-tagged locations., (See (Borras: Detailed Description – 84th-89th paragraphs, FIG. 19-21))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges in view of Uziel with these above aforementioned teachings from Borras in order to create a user-friendly environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Borras’s high accuracy geo-location system and method for mobile payment in order for an autonomous vehicle to determine whether to navigate toll lanes based on: entering or approaching geo-tagged locations, a list of upcoming exits of the toll lanes, a planned exit associated with an active mapping route, and a detected number of occupants of the autonomous vehicle. Combining Gerges and Borras would thus provide “a method and apparatus to improve location accuracy for a variety of vehicular-related applications.” (Borras: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 16:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12. Gerges further teaches:
[…] based at least on verifying legibility of the one or more toll signs., (See (Gerges: Detailed Description – 38th-50th, 53rd-60th, and 65th-68th paragraphs))
Gerges does not teach but Borras teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further to generate a list of one or more upcoming exits of the one or more toll lanes, (See (Borras: Detailed Description – 74th-76th, 84th, 94th-96th, and 116th-117th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges in view of Uziel with these above aforementioned teachings from Borras in order to create a user-friendly environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Borras’s high accuracy geo-location system and method for mobile payment in order for an autonomous vehicle to determine whether to navigate toll lanes based on: entering or approaching geo-tagged locations, a list of upcoming exits of the toll lanes, a planned exit associated with an active mapping route, and a detected number of occupants of the autonomous vehicle. Combining Gerges and Borras would thus provide “a method and apparatus to improve location accuracy for a variety of vehicular-related applications.” (Borras: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 17:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12. Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the text prompt of the multimodal prompt is further to cause the VLM to, (See (Uziel: Summary – 4th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-59th, 68th-75th, and 80th-86th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Gerges in view of Uziel does not teach but Borras teaches:
[…] determine whether to drive in the one or more toll lanes based at least on a list of one or more upcoming exits of the one or more toll lanes., (See (Borras: Detailed Description – 74th-76th, 84th, 94th-96th, and 116th-117th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges in view of Uziel with these above aforementioned teachings from Borras in order to create a user-friendly environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Borras’s high accuracy geo-location system and method for mobile payment in order for an autonomous vehicle to determine whether to navigate toll lanes based on: entering or approaching geo-tagged locations, a list of upcoming exits of the toll lanes, a planned exit associated with an active mapping route, and a detected number of occupants of the autonomous vehicle. Combining Gerges and Borras would thus provide “a method and apparatus to improve location accuracy for a variety of vehicular-related applications.” (Borras: Background – 8th paragraph)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerges (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0027344 A1) in view of Uziel (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0162613 A1) in further view of Mahlawat (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0267516 A1).
Regarding Claim 7:
Gerges in view of Uziel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gerges does not teach but Uziel teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the text prompt of the multimodal prompt is further to cause the VLM to, (See (Uziel: Summary – 4th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-59th, 68th-75th, and 80th-86th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges with these above aforementioned teachings from Uziel in order to create a smart environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Uziel’s image-based system for generation of descriptive and perceptive messages of automotive scenes in order to prompt a vision-language model of an autonomous vehicle to generate responses indicating whether to navigate toll lanes and control the autonomous vehicle based on the responses. Combining Gerges and Uziel would thus provide “perception systems for describing and responding to environmental situations.” (Uziel: Introduction – 2nd paragraph)
Gerges in view of Uziel does not teach but Mahlawat teaches:
[…] determine whether to drive in the one or more toll lanes based at least on a designated maximum toll., (See (Mahlawat: Detailed Description – 70th-72nd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gerges in view of Uziel with these above aforementioned teachings from Mahlawat in order to create a cost-efficient environmental text perception and toll evaluation system using vision language models. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerges’s toll road detection and reporting system with Mahlawat’s system and method for providing customized toll pricing in order for an autonomous vehicle to determine whether to navigate toll lanes based on a designated maximum toll. Combining Gerges and Mahlawat would thus provide “a system and method for efficiently collecting toll from users, ensuring optimal utilization of toll roads, reducing inconvenience for the users, and maximizing revenue generation for toll agencies.” (Mahlawat: Background of the Invention – 7th paragraph)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 13th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the limitations are taught in the combination of Uziel and Gerges as has been set forth above, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Therefore, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
More specifically, Uziel mentions “A system is disclosed and includes: […] to generate the text message.” Furthermore, Uziel states “The image encoder 204 encodes […] in an autoregressive manner (word by word) as described.” Uziel further states “At 420, […] and “Pedestrian close to vehicle will trigger logging of perception data for off-line analysis”.” Finally, Uziel mentions “In this application, […] and Python®.” See (Uziel: Summary – 4th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-59th, 68th-76th, and 80th-86th paragraphs) In doing so, Uziel addresses the Applicant’s limitations of “apply, to a vision-language model (VLM) of the ego-machine, a multimodal prompt comprising the image data representing the one or more toll signs and a text prompt to cause the VLM to generate one or more text responses determining” as set forth in claim 1 and “apply the multimodal prompt to cause the VLM to” in claim 4.
Moreover, Gerges mentions “The sign recognition unit may be configured to […] the driver of the lane information.” See (Gerges: Summary – 13th-22nd paragraphs) Furthermore, Gerges states “Vehicles are often equipped with […] to the driver alert system 22.” Gerges further states “As the vehicle 10 is travelling along […] and the method 200 ends at 236.” Finally, Gerges mentions “If a toll sign is detected at 312, […] and the method 300 ends at 328.” See (Gerges: Detailed Description – 38th-50th, 53rd-60th, and 65th-68th paragraphs) In doing so, Gerges addresses the Applicant’s limitations of “whether to navigate in one or more toll lanes based at least on the image data” as set forth in claim 1 and “evaluate the image data representing the one or more toll signs in response to verifying legibility of the one or more toll signs” as set forth in claim 4.
As a result, the combination of Uziel and Gerges addresses "apply[ing], to a vision-language model (VLM) of the ego-machine, a multimodal prompt comprising the image data representing the one or more toll signs and a text prompt to cause the VLM to generate one or more text responses determining whether to navigate in one or more toll lanes based at least on the image data" as set forth by the Applicant in claim 1 and "apply[ing] the multimodal prompt to cause the VLM to evaluate the image data representing the one or more toll signs in response to verifying legibility of the one or more toll signs" as set forth by the Applicant in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, 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 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.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights