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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 4-5, 12, 14-15, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected Groups 1 and 2, as well as Species I.A and I.C-D, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/28/2026.
Thus, claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13, and 16-19 of Group 1, Species I.B are pending.
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, 6-11, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, these claims recite the following limitations which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more, with claim 1 being exemplary:
assign a weight to the recognized information according to a predetermined criterion; and estimate a location of the vehicle based on the recognized information to which the weight is applied (abstract idea as mathematical concepts per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I), wherein both assigning a weight and estimating a location using the weight are nothing more than mathematical calculations)
recognize information related to the specific point in the image (abstract idea as a mental process per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III) recognizing information within an image, even a specific point, can be performed in the human mind).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Claims 1 and 11 all recite the additional element of the step of obtain an image by using the camera if the vehicle enters a specific point, which while not necessarily being abstract ideas, are insignificant extra solution activity since they are merely data gathering and data output (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Moreover, these elements amount to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Claim 1 further recites additional elements: claim 1 is directed towards a system comprising a memory, and a processor. While the processor and memory of claim 1 are additional elements, they are not sufficient to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas recited in claim 1 as they amount to mere generic computer elements and thus amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. see MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, the above recited additional elements from claims 1 and 11 do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Rather, the additional elements disclosed above perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 7, 9, 17 and 19, the limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, specifically mathematical concepts per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Regarding claims 3, 6, 8, 13, 16, and 18, the limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, specifically mental concepts per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Additionally, claims 8 and 18 also comprise a mathematical concept of cropping an image as well as an insignificant extra solution activity (transmitting to a server) since they are merely data gathering and data output (see MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are merely directed towards insignificant extra solution activity (the inclusion of a vehicle). They are not sufficient to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas recited in claim 10 as they amount to mere generic elements and thus amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception.
Finally, it is noted that as per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), a practical application and thus subject matter eligibility can be found when the following two requirements are met per a two-step analysis: In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Applicant is invited to provide remarks regarding the specific locations in the Specification of the disclosed technical improvement per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) to assist in identifying limitations that, if amended into the claims, could overcome the present rejection.
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.
Claim 6 and 16 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 6 recites the limitation “extract information related…” in page 2 of the Claims. It is unclear if this information is the same information that is being extracted in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them to be the same information. Claim 16 is rejected for reciting a similar limitation.
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.
Claim 10 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. Claim 10 is not further limiting of its dependent claim 1, as claim 1 already discloses a vehicle apparatus of a vehicle. 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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10-11, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher James Gibson US-12498228-B1, hereinafter Gibson, and Ahmed Kamel SADEK US-20230322259-A1, hereinafter SADEK.
As per claim 1, Gibson discloses a vehicle apparatus of a vehicle (see Gibson col. 4 lines 31-32, wherein a vehicle apparatus is disclosed), the vehicle apparatus comprising:a camera (see Gibson col. 5 lines 20-21, wherein a camera is disclosed); anda processor (see Gibson col. 32 line 36, wherein a processor is disclosed),wherein the processor is configured to:obtain an image by using the camera if the vehicle enters a specific point (see Gibson col. 3 lines 3-4 and 11-24, wherein image data is captured. When a disparity or anomaly is found at that location of the image (wherein the location of the disparity is the specific point), the vehicle flags the image and provides the image and map data at that location. See also Gibson col. 5 lines 19-22, wherein the image is obtained by a vehicle camera);recognize information related to the specific point in the image (see Gibson col. 5 lines 19-44, wherein image data received from operation 104 (recognized), the image data representing various information, including a represented object and their characteristics);assign a weight to the recognized information according to a predetermined criterion (see Gibson col. 15 lines 11-17, wherein the weighing of contribution of the detection of objects, wherein the detected object is the recognized information, is disclosed. The criterion being a disparity between the detected object and the information of the map data).
However, Gibson fails to explicitly disclose where SADEK teaches:estimate a location of the vehicle based on the recognized information to which the weight is applied (see SADEK ¶47-48, wherein the location of the vehicle is determined with respect to the information of objects and features in the environment, i.e., the recognized information. Weights are applied to the various sensor data to arrive at a weighted or confidence-adjusted location of various objects in the environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gibson’s system by using SADEK’s teaching by including the estimation of a location the vehicle using the assigned weights in order to more precisely pinpoint the location of the vehicle using its surrounding area.
As per claim 3, Gibson, in combination with SADEK, discloses the vehicle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:recognize an object in the image obtained by the camera (see Gibson col. 5 lines 24-25, wherein an object is represented, as in recognized, from the sensor data. The sensor data includes images as described in Gibson col. 5 lines 19-22); anddetermine that the vehicle enters the specific point, based on the recognized object (see Gibson col. 13 lines 42-45, wherein any sensor data is used to localize the vehicle (determining the location of the vehicle), such as the location of an object in the environment where the disparity is detected).
As per claim 6, Gibson, in combination with SADEK, discloses the vehicle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:extract information related to the specific point from the image by using an image recognition model mapped for the respective specific point (see Gibson col. 14 lines 26-30, wherein the perception component determines potential disparities between the objects perceived in the driving environment. Gibson col. 15 lines 7-11 discloses sending, as in extracts, data (or information) of the location and detected objects where a disparity exists. It is clarified in Gibson col. 12 lines 54-58, wherein the perception component of a vehicle includes a ML model for detecting, identifying, segmenting, classifying, and/or tracking objects from sensor data collected from the environment of the autonomous vehicle).
As per claim 7, Gibson, in combination with SADEK, discloses the vehicle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:determine a weight for the recognized information based on a relevance degree between the recognized information and the specific point (see Gibson col 15. Lines 11-17, wherein a weighting of the contribution of the detection, i.e., recognized information, based on the disparity, i.e., relevance degree, of the detected objects and the environment, as in the location where the disparity occurs, i.e., the specific point).
As per claim 10, Gibson, in combination with SADEK, discloses a vehicle comprising the vehicle apparatus of claim 1 (see Gibson FIG. 2, wherein an autonomous vehicle comprises an autonomous vehicle system).
As per claims 11, 13, and 16-17, the rationale provided in claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9 are incorporated herein. In addition, the method of claims 11, 13, 16-17 correspond to the system of claims 1, 3, and 6-7.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson, in combination with SADEK, in further view of Harish PULLAGURLA US-20240426632-A1, hereinafter Harish, and Palanivel Guruva Reddiar US-20190096244-A1, hereinafter Reddiar.
As per claim 8, while Gibson discloses recalibrating image recognition if mapping failure between the recognized information and map data is repeated a predetermined number of times or more (see Gibson FIG. 7 and col. 26 lines 6-9 and lines 34-38, wherein a first and second threshold of the accumulated location errors are surpassed. Sensor recalibration is performed if both thresholds are surpassed), it fails to explicitly disclose where Harish teaches:transmit the image to a server and make a request for image recognition if mapping failure between the recognized information and map data (see Harish ¶70, wherein a request for corrections in the map data and sensor data in case of any discrepancies or errors in the identified objects, road features, a portion of the map data, or the location of the vehicle. The autonomous vehicle transmits any data, which includes sensor data, such as images captured by image sensors as disclosed in Harish ¶85, taken to a remote server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gibson’s, in combination with SADEK, system by using Harish’s teaching by including the transmission to a server and making a request to the mapping failure in order to further acquire driving assistance in case of any emergencies in the navigation of the vehicle.
However, Gibson, in combination with SADEK and Harish, fails to explicitly disclose where Reddiar teaches:crop only a region of interest (ROI) of a location from the image and transmit the ROI to the server (see Reddiar ¶16 and ¶22-23 and FIG. 2, wherein image analysis is performed on the visual data to determine ROIs is transmitted to a remote server. The vehicle captures an image and the ROIs of the area or location (wherein the area or location corresponds to the specific point) are cropped out ROI from the image)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gibson’s, in combination with SADEK and Harish, system by using Reddiar’s teaching by including cropping a region of interest of the location in the image in order to further focus in on the region wherein an error, failure, or danger is located.
While Reddiar does not disclose a specific point, it would have been obvious to have done so. The reason is because the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “specific point” is any location that a vehicle can enter or drive through. It can also be recognized by objects or points of interest using map information (map data), image information, communication information, or vehicle location information (e.g., including absolute coordinates, altitude, or the like), or any combination thereof, as defined in the Applicant’s Specification ¶78-80. Reddiar ¶19 discloses using visual data is order to determine the location and position information of vehicles. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by the applicant to modify the location of Reddiar to be the specific point by using the visual data (image information), which allows the region of interest to be cropped from the image in order to focus on a particular spot.
As per claim 18, the rationale provided in claim 8 is incorporated herein. In addition, the method of claim 18 corresponds to the system of claim 8.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson, in combination with SADEK, in further view of MANG WOO SEUNG KR-20050058810-A, hereinafter SEUNG.
As per claim 9, Gibson, in combination with SADEK, fails to explicitly disclose where SEUNG teaches:The vehicle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:configure map data by matching the recognized information based on coordinates (see SEUNG page 4/23, wherein map data is generated, as in configured, by matching the identification character of an imaged object, i.e., the recognized information, and the positioned measured by the GPS (location coordinates)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gibson’s, in combination with SADEK, system by using SEUNG’s teaching by including the configured map data to the recognized information in order to create an accurate map of the area using the coordinates of the recognized information.
As per claim 19, the rationale provided in claim 8 is incorporated herein. In addition, the method of claim 19 corresponds to the system of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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.
/BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
