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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 7/27/2026.
2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and are addressed below.
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
4. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (i.e., at most, applicant claims about using a generic computer to practice a mental process of changing a predetermined route).
101 Analysis - Step 1: Claims 8-9, and 10 are directed to “a process”, and “a device”; therefore, they are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative “method” claim 8 includes limitation(s) that recites an abstract idea (with bold-face words, and underlined words for insignificant limitations)(emphasized below):
Per independent claim 8: A control method for a vehicle, comprising:
receiving a parameter for generating generated map data or receiving generated map data (i.e., merely receiving parameter/data is an abstract idea/a mental activity); and
controlling a function of the vehicle based on the data (“controlling a function” is an abstract idea/a mental activity).
As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all." 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("“[M]ental processes .. and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, a method that claims about above steps is an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of using a device/computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., there is no “specific” practical structure, or storage medium in those pending claims, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
(MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, those claims recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis — Step 2A, Prong II
According to the 2019 PEG, the claim is to be analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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 merely using a generic computer/processor 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 specific practical application (e.g., sensing data for use on a vehicle/device).
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., merely replacing/updating data for a map). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception (e.g., using a generic computer component: a “control” device). Generally applying an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g., using sensing data for controlling a vehicle).
The additional limitations of receiving/obtaining data, determining/predicting, and outputting “data” are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that these claimed activities are all conventional, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data for a ship is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner from the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int'l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere pre/post-solution activity is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
5. Independent claim 10 includes an insignificant generic component to practice the invention (i.e., to implementing an abstract process of claim 8 to control a vehicle), having similar claimed limitations of claim 8 in the claimed bodies, they are analyzed and are rejected as above method claim 8.
6. Dependent claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because it is directed to a non-statutory subject matter by incorporating their independent claim 8 deficiencies (i.e., further processing obtained data); therefore, it is also ineligible under 35 USC 101 because using certain data do not indicate a specific practical application (e.g., including a significant further) for the claimed features.
7. In summary, claims 8-10 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
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.
8. The claims 7, and 10 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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 “a unit is configured to...” (see claim 7, line 4), and “a control device...is configured to .. (as in pending claim 10 line 1).
For examination purposes, the examiner assumes that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked for this pending application because “a device” can be represented for many different things (e.g., a module, a circuit, a unit, a controller ...) both in software and in hardware.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zahid et al (US Pub 20260097791 A1 – hereafter “Zahid’791”)
A. Per independent claim 8: Zahid’791 teaches a method for a vehicle, comprising:
receiving a parameter for generating/receiving map data(i.e., using a camera 114 to receive data, see Zahid’791 para. [0036], [0044]); and
Zahid’791 controls a driving function based on the map data (see Zahid’791 para. [0086], [0088], and claim 4).
B. Per dependent claim 9: Zahid’791 teaches that related parameter is “for”/ used on different sensors of the vehicle to predict/determine better data (see Zahid’791 para. [0070], [0093]).
C. Per independent claim 10: Zahid’791 teaches a device to:
receive a parameter/receiving data for navigation (see Zahid’791 para. [0038]); and
control a driving function (path/route) based on the received data (see Zahid’791 para. [0038], [0112]).
Therefore, claimed limitations are met by Zahid’791.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
10. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid et al’791 in view of Donderici (US Pub. 20230391358 A1).
A. Per claim 1: Zahid’791 teaches a method for training a generator of a generative adversarial
Network (GAN – see Zahid’791 para [0075], or Donderici Fig.,8), comprising features:
providing first sensor data from at least a first type of sensor and recorded in a first spatial region(see Zahid’791 para.[0036]);
generating generated map data from the first sensor data using the generator (e.g., using a sensor 114 to process data, see Zahid’791 para.[0044]);
comparing the generated map data with already available map data using a discriminator of the generative adversarial network (see Zahid’791 para.[0075]) and determining whether the generated map data can be distinguished from the already available map data (see Zahid’791 para.[0075], [0087], [0143]);
Zahid’791 does not disclose about adjusting (matching/comparing) a parameter for generating the generated map data; however, Donderici suggests that action (see Donderici, para. [0086]) when the generated map data can be distinguished from the already available map data (see Zahid’791 para.[0066], [0070], [0093]), and repeating (i.e., process a closed loop 801 (see Donderici, para. [0113], [0116]) the generating and the comparing steps (see Zahid’791 para.[0052],[0088]); and stopping/ending/terminating the method when the generated map data can no longer be distinguished from the already available map data (see Donderici, FIG. 2 references 214, 216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Zahid’791 with Donderici to filter/modify available data for more/narrower results because they are in the same area of endeavor – which task has been a successful expectation (see Donderici, para[0113]).
B. Per dependent claim 2: Zahid’791also suggests that a second type of sensor (speed/camera) are provided and the generated map data are generated from the first sensor data and the second sensor data (e.g., using a mobile Lidar to update previous data, see Zahid’791 para.[0038], and claim 4).
C. Per dependent claim 3: Zahid’791also suggests that generated map data include object data (e.g., a map/navigation data: lane, see Zahid’791 para. [0061]).
D. Per dependent claim 4: Zahid’791also suggests that generated map data include predicted sensor data from a further type of sensor (e.g., a speedometer, see Zahid’791 para. [0070], [0093]).
E. Per dependent claim 5: Zahid’791also suggests that “when necessary” (this is an option”, adjusting the parameter are repeated for better data (e.g., using an AI system characteristic to continue the comparing process for better matched data; see Zahid’791 para. [0086], [0088], process a closed loop 801 (see also Donderici, para. [0113], [0116])).
F. Per dependent claim 6: Zahid’791 suggests results are output to a vehicle (e.g., to control a vehicle’s navigation, see Zahid’791 claim 4).
G. Per independent claim 7: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Donderici also suggests about using a generic computing unit, having a generic input interface; and a processor to perform the claimed invention (see Donderici, para. [0044], [0171], [0212])..
Conclusion
11. Pending claims 1-10 are rejected.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights