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 .
Amended claims 1 thru 20 have been entered into the record.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to Figure 6A overcome the drawing objections from the previous office action (3/18/2025). The drawing objections are withdrawn.
The amendments to the specification overcome the specification objections from the previous office action (3/18/2025). The specification objections are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previous office action (3/18/2025). The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. The pending 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are recited below in this office action.
The amendments to the claims overcome the prior art rejections from the previous office action (3/18/2025). The prior art rejections are withdrawn.
The terminal disclaimer (submitted and approved on 6/18/2026) overcome the double patenting rejections from the previous office action (3/18/2026). The double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3 thru 10 and 17 thru 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. There are new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 7 thru 9 and 17; new 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claims 16 and 12; and there are new 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 3 thru 10 and 18 thru 20. All other previous rejections (see office action of 3/18/2026) have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the phrase “when it is determined the class that has” should be “when it is determined that the class that has”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 19, the ‘period’ should be removed from after the word ‘model’. 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 7 thru 9 and 17 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.
Claim 7 recites “a highest probability” in line 3, while claim 1 also recites “a highest probability” in line 11. It is unclear if this is a new highest probability or the same highest probability. The examiner assumes it is the same highest probability for continued examination.
Claim 17 recites “a highest probability” in line 3, while claim 11 also recites “a highest probability” in line 12. It is unclear if this is a new highest probability or the same highest probability. The examiner assumes it is the same highest probability for continued examination.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claim 16 (claim 12 depends from claim 16) are the same limitations as recited in independent claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3 thru 10 and 18 thru 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 18 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A method for lane marker detection for vehicle driving, comprising:
at a computer system including one or more processors and memory:
obtaining a road image captured by a first vehicle;
determining whether the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification, including:
determining for a first region, less than all, of the road image, probabilities that the first region should be classified into a plurality of lane marker classifications;
classifying the first region to have a lane marker classification from the plurality of lane marker classifications; and
when a highest probability, of the probabilities, for the first region is less than a threshold value, classifying the first region into a no lane marker class;
in accordance with the determination that the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification:
generating a labeled road image, including identifying one or more lane markers in the road image; and
adding the labeled road image to a corpus of training data for training a model to generate an autonomous driving model.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could make a judgement about an image of a road to determine if the lane markers are ambiguous, classify a region into a lane marker classification, determine probabilities for the classification and which probability is highest, then generate a label to the image and add it to the a group of data. See PGPUB P[0082] of the present application which also disclose a desirable output is optionally labelled manually by human. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent claim 18 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured for execution by one or more processors of a computer system, the one or more programs comprising instructions for: obtaining a road image captured by a first vehicle;
determining whether the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification, including:
determining for a first region, less than all, of the road image, probabilities that the first region should be classified into a plurality of lane marker classifications;
classifying the first region to have a lane marker classification from the plurality of lane marker classifications; and
when a highest probability, of the probabilities, for the first region is less than a threshold value, classifying the first region into a no lane marker class;
in accordance with the determination that the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification:
generating a labeled road image, including identifying one or more lane markers in the road image; and
adding the labeled road image to a corpus of training data for training a model to generate an autonomous driving model.
Therefore, claim 18 also recite at least one abstract idea based on the same reasoning as claim 1 (see above).
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method for lane marker detection for vehicle driving, comprising:
at a computer system including one or more processors and memory (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
obtaining a road image captured by a first vehicle (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
determining whether the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification, including:
determining for a first region, less than all, of the road image, probabilities that the first region should be classified into a plurality of lane marker classifications;
classifying the first region to have a lane marker classification from the plurality of lane marker classifications; and
when a highest probability, of the probabilities, for the first region is less than a threshold value, classifying the first region into a no lane marker class;
in accordance with the determination that the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification:
generating a labeled road image, including identifying one or more lane markers in the road image; and
adding the labeled road image to a corpus of training data for training a model to generate an autonomous driving model (extra-solution activity (data outputting) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of a computer system including one or more processors and memory, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of obtaining a road image captured by a first vehicle; and training a model to generate an autonomous driving model, these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; data outputting) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Similarly, independent claim 18 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured for execution by one or more processors of a computer system (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the one or more programs comprising instructions for: obtaining a road image captured by a first vehicle (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
determining whether the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification, including:
determining for a first region, less than all, of the road image, probabilities that the first region should be classified into a plurality of lane marker classifications;
classifying the first region to have a lane marker classification from the plurality of lane marker classifications; and
when a highest probability, of the probabilities, for the first region is less than a threshold value, classifying the first region into a no lane marker class;
in accordance with the determination that the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification:
generating a labeled road image, including identifying one or more lane markers in the road image; and
adding the labeled road image to a corpus of training data for training a model to generate an autonomous driving model (extra-solution activity (data outputting) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the additional limitations of storing one or more programs configured for execution by one or more processors of a computer system, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of obtaining a road image captured by a first vehicle; and training a model to generate an autonomous driving model, these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; data outputting) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 18 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1 and 18 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1, the additional limitation of a computer system including one or more processors and memory, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 18, the additional limitations of storing one or more programs configured for execution by one or more processors of a computer system, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of obtaining a road image captured by a first vehicle; and training a model to generate an autonomous driving model, these additional limitations have been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such limitations are not unconventional as they merely consist of data gathering and data transmitting which are recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, adding a preliminary step of gathering data to a process that only recites determining a classification of an ambiguous image and labelling it (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of lane marker detection for driving a vehicle. Similarly, adding a final step of training a model to a process that only recites determining a classification of an ambiguous image and labelling it (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of lane marker detection for driving a vehicle. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims 3 thru 10, 19 and 20 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims are directed:
Claim 3 - the plurality of lane marker classifications include: a dashed lane marker class, a solid lane marker class, a curb marker class, and a no lane marker class. (Defining the lane marker classifications.)
Claim 4 - the first region is one of a plurality of regions, and each region of the plurality of regions corresponds to one respective single pixel of the road image. (Defining the regions.)
Claim 5 - the first region is one of a plurality of regions, and each region of the plurality of regions corresponds to at least two pixels of the road image. (Defining the regions.)
Claim 6 - the first region is one of a plurality of regions; and the method further includes determining, for each respective region of the plurality of regions, probabilities that the respective region should be classified into the plurality of lane marker classifications.
Claim 7 - for each region of the plurality of regions in the road image: determining a class that has a highest probability; when it is determined the class that has the highest probability belongs to a predefined subset of classes, incrementing a total lane pixel count; when it is determined that the highest probability is within a predetermined range of values from a first threshold value, incrementing an ambiguous lane pixel count; and determining a ratio of the ambiguous lane pixel count to the total lane pixel count.
Claim 8 - when it is determined that the ratio is above a second threshold value, determining that the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification.
Claim 9 - for each region of the plurality of regions in the road image: when it is determined that the class that has the highest probability belongs to the predefined subset of classes, ignoring the respective region if the highest probability does not meet the first threshold value.
Claim 10 - the labeled road image includes: information identifying one or more lane markers in the labeled road image; and/or information identifying one or more lanes in the labeled road image. (Defining the labeled road image.)
Claim 19 - the first region is one of a plurality of regions, and the instructions for determining whether the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification include instructions for: determining whether each region of the plurality of regions of the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification.
Claim 20 - the instructions for determining whether each region of the plurality of regions of the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification include instructions for: determining a set of probabilities of classifying each region of a plurality of regions of the road image into a plurality of predefined classes, wherein whether each region of the plurality of regions of the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification is determined based on values of the set of probabilities of the respective region.
These limitations are extra-solution activity, or part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim 2 (distributing the autonomous driving model to one or more second vehicles, wherein the autonomous driving model is configured to process road images captured by the one or more second vehicles to facilitate at least partially autonomously driving the one or more second vehicles) is considered a practical application of the abstract idea and is not subject to the above 101 rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 allowable. These claims are objected to for minor grammatical typo.
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 12 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 4th paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The reasons for indicating allowable subject matter over the prior art of record regarding claim 11 (similar to the combination of claims 1 and 2) are based on the combination of limitations in the amended claims 11 (and claims 1 and 2). The closest prior art of record is Su et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0370566 A1. Su et al disclose an image processing method. The method includes determining a candidate track in an image of a road. The candidate track is modelled as a parameterized line or curve corresponding to a candidate lane marking in the image of a road. The method further includes dividing the candidate track into a plurality of cells. Each cell corresponding to a segment of the candidate track. The method further includes determining at least one marklet for a plurality of said cells. Each marklet of a cell corresponds to a line or curve connecting left and right edges of the candidate lane marking. The method further includes determining at least one local feature of each of said plurality of cells based on characteristics of said marklets, determining at least one global feature of the candidate track by aggregating the local features of the plurality of cells, and determining if the candidate lane marking represents a lane marking based on the at least one global feature.
Regarding claim 11 (and claims 1 and 2), Su et al, taken either individually or in combination with other prior art, fails to teach or render obvious a computer system and method comprising one or more processors, and memory storing one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors. The one or more programs comprising instructions for obtaining a road image captured by a first vehicle, and determining whether the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification. The determining whether the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification includes determining for a first region, less than all, of the road image, probabilities that the first region should be classified into a plurality of lane marker classifications, and classifying the first region to have a lane marker classification from the plurality of lane marker classifications. When a highest probability, of the probabilities, for the first region is less than a threshold value, classifying the first region into a no lane marker class. In accordance with the determination that the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification, then generating a labeled road image, including identifying one or more lane markers in the road image, and adding the labeled road image to a corpus of training data for training a model to generate an autonomous driving model. In further accordance with the determination that the road image is ambiguous for lane marker classification, distributing the autonomous driving model to one or more vehicles. The autonomous driving model is configured to process road images captured by the one or more vehicles to facilitate at least partially autonomously driving the one or more vehicles.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights