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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on August 15, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 15, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 12, “the one or more road boundaries” should read “the one or more boundaries”.
Claim 16, line 13, “the road intersection” should read “the intersection”.
Claim 17, line 1, “The non-transitory computer-readable storage” appears to be a typographical error and should read “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
Claim 18, line 1, “The non-transitory computer-readable storage” appears to be a typographical error and should read “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
Claim 19, line 1, “The non-transitory computer-readable storage” appears to be a typographical error and should read “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
Claim 19, line 6, “the one or more mapped road boundaries” should read “the one or more mapped boundaries”.
Claim 19, line 8, “the one or more other triangles” should read “the one or more other branch triangles”.
Claim 20, line 1, “The non-transitory computer-readable storage” appears to be a typographical error and should read “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the limitation “the vertices of the one or more branch triangles” at line 12 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “vertices of the one or more branch triangles”.
As to claim 7, the limitation “the entry or exit roads” at line 1 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “entry or exit roads”.
As to claim 12, the limitation “the one or more branch triangles” at line 2 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to the Examiner if this is meant to “at least one first branch triangle” previously recited in claim 11 or different limitation. The Examiner notes that if it is a different limitation, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “the at least one first branch triangle”.
Further, the limitation “the one or more other branch triangles” at lines 2-3 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to the Examiner if this is meant to “at least one second branch triangle” previously recited in claim 11 or different limitation. The Examiner notes that if it is a different limitation, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “the at least one second branch triangle”.
As to claim 16, the limitation “the vertices of the one or more branch triangles” at lines 12-13 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “vertices of the one or more branch triangles”.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 13, 14, and 17-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 11, and 16 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1, 11, and 16 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claims are directed toward a machine and a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The independent claims (claims 1 and 16) are directed to a mathematical concept, i.e., an abstract idea through a series of steps/relationships: “determining a set of observables associated with the road intersection, wherein the set of observables comprises a plurality of point observations of one or more road boundaries of the road intersection, and wherein the plurality of point observations are collected using one or more sensors of at least one vehicle traveling in the road intersection”, “processing the plurality of point observations to generate a triangular mesh to represent a surface of the road intersection, wherein the triangular mesh comprises a plurality of triangles connecting the plurality of point observations as respective vertices of the plurality of triangles”, “selecting one or more branch triangles of the plurality of triangles, wherein the vertices of the one or more branch triangles reference three different road boundaries of the road intersection”, and “automatically detecting the road intersection based on the one or more branch triangles”. These limitations therefore recite a mathematical concept. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The mere nominal recitation of a processor/one or more processors (claims 1 and 16), a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 16), or an apparatus (claim 16) does not take the claim limitation out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept.
The independent claim (claim 11) is directed to a mathematical concept, i.e., an abstract idea through a series of steps/relationships: “generate a first triangular mesh based on a plurality of point observations of one or more boundaries of the road intersection, and a second triangular mesh based on a mapped representation of the road intersection determined from a geographic database”, “select at least one first branch triangle from the first triangular mesh, wherein vertices of the at least one first branch triangle reference three different road boundaries of the one or more road boundaries”, and “select at least one second branch triangle from the second triangular mesh, wherein vertices of the at least one second branch triangle reference three different mapped road boundaries of the mapped representation”, and “based on a comparison of the at least one first branch triangle and the at least one second branch triangle”. These limitations therefore recite a mathematical concept. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The mere nominal recitation of an apparatus (claim 11), at least one processor (claim 11), or at least one memory (claim 11) does not take the claim limitation out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recites additional elements of “storing the detected road intersection as a data record of a geographic database” (claim 1), “mark the mapped representation as meeting an accuracy threshold, update the mapped representation in the geographic database, or a combination thereof” (claim 11), “providing the detected intersection as an output” (claim 16), a processor/at least one processor/one or more processors (claims 1, 11, and 16), a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 16), an apparatus (claims 11 and 16), and at least one memory (claim 11). The storing, marking, updating, and providing steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post-solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a processor/at least one processor/one or more processors” in claims 1, 11, and 16, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” in claim 16, “an apparatus” in claims 11 and 16, and “at least one memory” in claim 11, the Examiner submits the limitations are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “a processor/at least one processor/one or more processors”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “an apparatus”, and “at least one memory” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The component(s) merely automate(s) the aforementioned step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim(s) does/do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the processor/at least one processor/one or more processors”, “the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “the apparatus”, and “the at least one memory” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 11, and 16 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 11, and 16 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner additionally notes claims 2-10 depend from claim 1, claims 12-15 depend from claim 11, and claims 17-20 depend from claim 16.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, in claim 6, the additional limitations of “determining a number of entry or exit roads of the road intersection based on a number of the one or more branch triangles selected from the triangular mesh” is further step that covers performance of the mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or the act of calculating using mathematical methods using a similar analysis applied to claims 1, 11, and 16 above. As a further example, in claim 15, the “replacing the mapped representation with a representation of the road intersection generated from the plurality of point observations” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post-solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, using a similar analysis applied to claims 1, 11, and 16 above.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC §112(b) and 35 USC §101, set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
LIU et al. (CN 101930624 A) regarding a system for gridding triangularly the road intersection zone to acquire the three-dimensional intersection model.
GONG et al. (CN 112562062 A) regarding a system for combining all triangular grid models to establish a road intersection model.
LIU et al. (CN 113609691 A) regarding a system for obtaining the triangular index of the grid of the intersection based on the Delaunay triangulation algorithm.
Thibaux et al. (US 20230099772 A1) regarding a system for providing at least one particular enumerated lane graph topology.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-3151. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Anne M ANTONUCCI can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/K.S.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666