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
Pending
1-6
101
1-6
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 20November2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-6 has (have) been amended, no claims has/have been cancelled, and no new claims has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-6 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims affected the prior scope thereby necessitating further search and consideration. The instant office action has been made FINAL.
Applicant's arguments filed on 20November2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument that the amendments to claim overcome a 101 rejection, the examiner respectfully disagrees. A driver can extract road information from an image obtained by their eyes. A human looking at a map can perform semantic segmentation of an image by identifying different elements of an image, such as a lane divider or curb. A human can determine that the road has a curb or determine where the side to side limits are. A human can look at a map that has a segment of road covered and assume there is road under the covered section based on context clues, regardless if the determination or assumption is using the curb, lane dividers, or lanes. A human can compare what they determined to a known map or a 3d image of the area.
Further, the recitation of a machine learning model acts as a mere recitation of applying the abstract idea to a computer. The recitation of an abstract idea applied to a computer does not prohibit the idea from being performed mentally as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and the court cases cited therein. There is no claimed limitation that prevents the machine learning model being a mental process a human can perform.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1 is directed towards a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a Prong 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, in part, “extracting demarcation line information from the image, estimating an occlusion area, determining continuity of the road, and generating traffic lane”. The limitations of selecting, determining, and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 above.
Step 2a Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a generic computing component(s) or automations to perform both the generic computing functions in the claim(s). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of using generic computer components and automations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and automations cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the invention as essentially claimed.
Fujita US 20210309231 in view of He US 20210382144 were considered most pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujita discloses,
A map information processing device comprising: a road information extraction unit([0038] The lane-keeping device 270 detects the travel lane from the images captured by the camera 221) extracting road information from an image obtained by shooting a road(221); a demarcation line information extraction unit(270) extracting demarcation line information from the image([0038] The lane-keeping device 270 has a lane departure prevention function (lane-keeping support function) of controlling the movement of the vehicle so as to keep a certain relationship between the position of a lane marker of the lane and the position of the vehicle which is based off of the image captured by 221).
He teaches a similar device in the same field of map generation and updating, wherein the device includes an occlusion estimation unit(116) estimating an occlusion area in which the road is occluded on the basis of the road information extraction unit([0038] The depth sensing device 116 may be configured to collect point cloud data above the vehicle 124 to identify any overhead obstructions 106) and a map information conversion unit estimating a road area from map information([0066] the map database includes data used for navigation-related and/or geographic-related services. For example, the map database contains road segment/link and node data records that represent a road network); a road continuity determination unit determining continuity of the road in the occlusion area([0035] The processor may calculate the pose path 102 by identifying at least two data points 108, 110 having location data of the vehicle as the vehicle travels along the road or pathway, and Fig. 1 shows the two data points are located on opposite sides of the obstruction 106).
However, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious the further combination of a road continuity determination unit determining continuity of the road in the occlusion area based on the demarcation line information; a traffic lane information generation unit generating traffic lane information on the basis of the road information extraction unit and the road continuity determination unit; and a verification unit verifying a traffic lane network stored in a map information storage unit by comparing it with the traffic lane information generated by the traffic lane information generation unit.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 John Merino whose telephone number is (703)756-4721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8am-6pm.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/John C Merino/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669