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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on 03/10/2026. Claims 1-8 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 were amended.
Reply to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-8 of the Applicant's Remarks, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under §101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The claims lack any sort of vehicle control and do not describe any sort of dataset a person could not comprehend or read, further nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, other than the device or computer in claims 7 and 8, respectively, and the claims encompass a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of relative map alignment is aligning sections of a physical map or edge aligning. The claims do not present details about how the map sections are aligned such as whether pixel examination is conducted. The determination of where a person in a vehicle is based on the comparison of different map sections can be done in the mind and was done before the invention of the computer. The Examiner is not claiming that "localizing the vehicle based on the aligned first and second map sections of the digital road map, the localizing being performed by the vehicle" is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, rather that the use of generic computer components is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection, see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer."). While the Applicant has claimed that the specification provides a technical improvement, the Examiner notes that the claims as a whole remain directed to the abstract idea of map section alignment and are not similar to known examples of computer improvements that are eligible, such as those presented in MPEP 2106.05(a)(1). Rather, the claims appear to be mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer for map section alignment, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(1) examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality, such as, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Examiner has concluded that in spite of the technical improvement claimed by the Applicant and the additional elements, when present, that because the claims are still directed to a judicial exception, they do not amount to an inventive concept and that the mental process rejection should be maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "device configured to", in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process as it recites (a method for aligning).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A method for aligning a first map section of a digital road map with a second map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the first map section, in order for a vehicle to localize itself, the method comprising the following steps:
determining that a first relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section cannot be unambiguously ascertained;
ascertaining a second relative rotation between a third map section of the digital road map and a fourth map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the third map section, wherein the third map section and the fourth map section are adjacent to the first map section and to the second map section; and
aligning the first map section with the second map section, wherein the alignment includes ascertaining a relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section based on the ascertained second relative rotation; and
localizing the vehicle based on the aligned first and second map sections of the digital road map, the localizing being performed by the vehicle.
The recited limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A method for aligning a first map section of a digital road map with a second map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the first map section, in order for a vehicle to localize itself, the method comprising the following steps:
determining that a first relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section cannot be unambiguously ascertained;
ascertaining a second relative rotation between a third map section of the digital road map and a fourth map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the third map section, wherein the third map section and the fourth map section are adjacent to the first map section and to the second map section; and
aligning the first map section with the second map section, wherein the alignment includes ascertaining a relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section based on the ascertained second relative rotation; and
localizing the vehicle based on the aligned first and second map sections of the digital road map, the localizing being performed by the vehicle.
There are no additional elements.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, there are no additional elements. For these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claims 2-6
These method claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 1, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the movement and alignment of different map sections, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional.
As per claim 7
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites (a device configured to align).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A device configured to align a first map section of a digital road map with a second map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the first map section, in order for a vehicle to localize itself, the device configured to:
determine that a first relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section cannot be unambiguously ascertained;
ascertain a second relative rotation between a third map section of the digital road map and a fourth map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the third map section, wherein the third map section and the fourth map section are adjacent to the first map section and to the second map section; and
align the first map section with the second map section, wherein the alignment includes ascertaining a relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section based on the ascertained second relative rotation; and
localize the vehicle based on the aligned first and second map sections of the digital road map, the localizing being performed by the vehicle.
The recited limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The mere nominal recitation of the device, and its unrecited processor, does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A device configured to align a first map section of a digital road map with a second map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the first map section, in order for a vehicle to localize itself, the device configured to:
determine that a first relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section cannot be unambiguously ascertained;
ascertain a second relative rotation between a third map section of the digital road map and a fourth map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the third map section, wherein the third map section and the fourth map section are adjacent to the first map section and to the second map section; and
align the first map section with the second map section, wherein the alignment includes ascertaining a relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section based on the ascertained second relative rotation; and
localize the vehicle based on the aligned first and second map sections of the digital road map, the localizing being performed by the vehicle.
The recited device is recited at a high level of generality and merely applies the exception using generic computer components to automate the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using
generic computer components. The use of generic computer components to execute a program is well-understood and conventional. For these reasons, claim 7 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claim 8
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites (a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for aligning a first map section of a digital road map with a second map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the first map section, in order for a vehicle to localize itself, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
determining that a first relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section cannot be unambiguously ascertained;
ascertaining a second relative rotation between a third map section of the digital road map and a fourth map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the third map section, wherein the third map section and the fourth map section are adjacent to the first map section and to the second map section; and
aligning the first map section with the second map section, wherein the alignment includes ascertaining a relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section based on the ascertained second relative rotation; and
localizing the vehicle based on the aligned first and second map sections of the digital road map, the localizing being performed by the vehicle.
The recited limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The mere nominal recitation of the computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for aligning a first map section of a digital road map with a second map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the first map section, in order for a vehicle to localize itself, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
determining that a first relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section cannot be unambiguously ascertained;
ascertaining a second relative rotation between a third map section of the digital road map and a fourth map section of the digital road map that at least partially overlaps the third map section, wherein the third map section and the fourth map section are adjacent to the first map section and to the second map section; and
aligning the first map section with the second map section, wherein the alignment includes ascertaining a relative rotation between the first map section and the second map section based on the ascertained second relative rotation; and
localizing the vehicle based on the aligned first and second map sections of the digital road map, the localizing being performed by the vehicle.
The recited computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely applies the exception using generic computer components to automate the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using
generic computer components. The use of generic computer components to execute a program is well-understood and conventional. For these reasons, claim 8 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
Conclusion
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 FARIS ASIM SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-6426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-F 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, Fadey S. Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/F.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights