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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 7/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the §112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 USC 101, 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are directed to an improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to routine and conventional activity that can be performed in the human mind. The claims are routine and conventional due to the maintained rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103. The invention can be performed in the human mind because the claims encompass a human driver seeing (for example) a narrowing of a road where lanes merge (associating lane topology) and making a determination that the lanes are merging.
Regarding Ex Parte Desjardins, the present application is not directed towards the improvement of training data as an input into a learning model/AI.
As per 35 USC 102 and 103, Applicant argues that Wang does not “perform an association”. The plain ordinary meaning of “associate” is (Merriam Webster Dictionary): “to join or connect together; to bring together or into relationship in any of various intangible ways (as in memory or imagination)”. The present application specification defines “lane topology” as: “ lane topology is information indicating a topology of lanes or a topology of an object on or around a road and a lane. The object may be any of a plurality of types of objects representing specific meanings on a road map. The topology is a mathematical structure indicating a spatial relationship between target objects. That is, the topology information is information indicating a manner of coupling of lanes forming a road or a manner of coupling of an object on or around a road and a lane”. Wang determines if road segments are connected and to determine if a track point is located in an intersection (Wang [0175-0178]) and is further able to connect road segments with objects like toll stations, ramps, tunnels, bridges, etc. (Wang [0030]) using mathematical relationships (Wang [0163], [0198]).
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9, 19 are directed to a product, claims 10-18 are directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). The examiner has identified claims 1-9 as the claims that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to claims 10-19.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, in part, “acquire…information…position information…associate…information…determine a lane topology…”. The limitations of 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)). The limitations of: a processor, a first vehicle, vehicle-mounted sensor are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally these sensors are well known sensors being used in their conventional manner, and thus are not significantly more than the judicial exception (see Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d, 1350 (Fed. Circ. 2016)). The additional element of a “computer” is just a generic computing device. Invocation of generic computing devices to perform or aid the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Associating data is considered comparing data and is considered as using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the claim does not
include limitations that purport the improvement to the function of a computer or another technology,
apply the abstract idea by way of a particular machine, or effect a tangible transformation in state of a
particular article (MPEP 2106.05). Rather, the abstract ideas are instead merely generally linked to a
particular technical field (MPEP 2106.04(3)).
Claims 2-9 recite, in part “units of lanes…disposes…an edge…latitude/longitude information…rotation angle…determines…information associated with…”. The limitations of 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)). Other limitations, when read in light of the specification, are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Updating the map ([0012-0013]) could possibly be directed towards an improvement in a technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-13, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20240053165A1 (“Wang”).
As per claims 1, 10, and 19 Wang teaches the limitations of the apparatus and method:
An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to: acquire, from a vehicle of a plurality of vehicles, lane topology information, and first information, wherein the lane topology information is estimated based on data acquired via a vehicle-mounted sensor of the vehicle, the lane topology information indicates a lane topology of a road traveled by the vehicle, and including the first information comprises position information corresponding to the lane topology information, associate, based on the first information, one or more pieces of the lane topology information acquired from the plurality of the vehicles with each of a plurality of road segments included in a road map, and determine a lane topology for each of the plurality of road segments included in the road map, based on the one or more pieces of the lane topology information that is associated with each of the plurality of road segments. (Wang at least the abstract, [0009-0124], [0015], [0030], [0253], [0176], [0141])
Claims 2 and 11:
wherein the lane topology expresses a network topology of the road in units of lanes, and the lane topology information is information expressing a partial network topology estimated based on the data. (Wang at least [0232-0233], [0144] )
Claims 3 and 12:
the processor disposes, at a time of determining the lane topology for a target road segment comprises an edge expressing a travel line of the vehicle, and a node connected to the edge. (Wang at least [0050], FIG. 7)
Claims 4 and 13:
the first information further comprises latitude/longitude information associated with the vehicle, and information indicating an orientation of the vehicle. (Wang at least [0154], [0249])
Claims 8 and 17:
in a case where a plurality of pieces of the lane topology information are associated with each of the plurality of road segments, determine the lane topology that corresponds to a road segment, based on the lane topology indicated by the lane topology information that is randomly selected from the plurality of pieces of the lane topology information. (Wang at least [0008], [0144])
Claims 9 and 18:
in a case where a plurality of pieces of the lane topology information are associated with each of the plurality of road segments, determine the lane topology that corresponds to a road segment, by using a result of combining the plurality of pieces of the lane topology information. (Wang at least [0208])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of US20230314170A1 (“Gao”).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Wang teaches the invention as described above. Wang teaches the coordinate system as above. Wang does not disclose:
the information indicating the orientation of the vehicle is expressed by a rotation angle of a first axis parallel to a traveling direction of the vehicle from a second axis of a geographic coordinate system.
Gao teaches the aforementioned limitation (Gao at least [0017-0018]). *Examiner’s note: one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of translating relative position between polar coordinates and grid coordinates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Gao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to provide reliable vehicle guidance (Gao [0004]).
Claim(s) 6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of US20240230343A1 (“Li”).
Regarding claims 6, 15, Wang teaches the invention as described above. Wang does not disclose:
the position information corresponding to the lane topology information is expressed by a coordinate system based on the vehicle, and the at least one processor is configured to correct the coordinate system of the position information to be a geographic coordinate system by using the latitude/longitude information associated with the vehicle and the information indicating the orientation of the vehicle.
Li teaches the aforementioned limitation (Li at least the abstract, [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve a correction effect of the positioning information and improve positioning precision (Li [0024]).
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of US20250207939A1 (“Tenhagen”) .
Regarding claims 7, 16, Wang teaches the invention as described above. Wang does not disclose:
in a case where there is a plurality of pieces of the lane topology information as candidates for association in relation to each of the plurality of road segments, determine the lane topology information that is to be associated, based on a number of lanes included in each piece of the plurality of pieces of the lane topology information.
Tenhagen teaches the aforementioned limitation (Tenhagen at least [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Tenhagen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the generation of map data (Tenhagen [0006]).
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 OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights