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 .
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 5-14 and 16-21 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 1-4 are restricted. Claim 15 is cancelled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 5-14 and 16-21 under 35 USC 112 (a) & 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 10 April 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 5-14 and 16-21 under 35 USC 112(a) & 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 10 April 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 5-14 and 16-21 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 10 April 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
The Claims Are Not Directed to a Judicial Exception
Prong 1 requires the Office to determine "whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim." MPEP, 2106.04. The Office carries the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP, 2106.07. In establishing a prima facie case, "the 2014 IEG [Interim Examiner Guidance] instructs examiners to refer to the body of case law precedent in order to identify abstract ideas by way of comparison to concepts already found to be abstract." July 2015 Update, p. 2. In particular, the July 2015 Update "is meant to guide examiners and ensure that a claimed concept is not identified as an abstract idea unless it is similar to at least one concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea." Id., p. 4. The 2019 Eligibility Guidance does not alter the Office's burden to establish a prima facie case that the claims are directed to a judicial exception. As stated in the 2019 Guidelines, when performing step 2A of the patent-eligibility guidelines, the Office is required to determine whether the claims are directed to one of the groups enumerated in the 2019 Guidelines. 2019 Guidelines, p. 9. The groupings include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (3) mental processes. Id., pp. 9-11.
Here, the Office alleges that the claims are directed to a "mental process," stating that "the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper." Office Action, p. 11. However, the MPEP states that "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." MPEP, 2106.04(a)(2)III(a). The MPEP gives further guidance on what constitutes not being practically capable of being performed in the human mind including, for example, determination of location from GPS, network activity, encryption protocols, and rendering half-tone images.
Similar to those negative examples above, independent claim 5, as amended herein, recites "receiving, based at least in part on the sensor data, map data indicating a traffic control annotation, wherein the traffic control annotation comprises an indication of a first portion of the environment and a second portion of the environment, the first portion of the environment being a drivable surface and the second portion of the environment being a non-drivable surface,""associating, as projected data, the traffic control annotation with the sensor data based at least in part on one or more of a position or orientation associated with a vehicle,""determining, based at least in part on the projected data, an association between the sensor data and the traffic control annotation,""updating, as updated map data, the map data based at least in part on the association, wherein the updated map data comprises an updated indication of the non-drivable surface,""receiving a route from a first waypoint to a second waypoint;""determining, based at least in part on the updated indication of the non-drivable surface, that a portion of the route is invalid;""the additional autonomous vehicle configured to navigate the environment based at least in part on the updated map data and the portion of the route being determined to be invalid;" and "a planning component of the additional autonomous vehicle is configured to require a confidence value greater than a nominal confidence value associated with the sensor data for determining a planned trajectory for the additional autonomous vehicle." Such limitations, however, cannot reasonably be interpreted as mental processes. In other words, at least "associating, as projected data, the traffic control annotation with the sensor data based at least in part on one or more of a position or orientation associated with a vehicle...updating, as updated map data, the map data based at least in part on the association, wherein the updated map data comprises an updated indication of the non-drivable surface... determining, based at least in part on the updated indication of the non-drivable surface, that a portion of the route is invalid... navigat[ing] the environment based at least in part on the updated map data and the portion of the route being determined to be invalid...requir[ing, when navigating the environment and based at least in part on the association between the sensor data and the annotation,] a confidence value greater than a nominal confidence value associated with the sensor data for determining a planned trajectory for the additional autonomous vehicle" cannot reasonably or practically be performed by any human being as a mental process. Given (1) the complexity and the processing resources involved in the projection, association, and updating of highly detailed map annotations with sensor data (See Specification, para. [0012]), (2) the complexity of properly determining routes to be invalid based on determinations of non-drivable and drivable surfaces, as well as (3) the timeframe for such an update and determination to be useful given the dynamics of changing roads (See Specification, para. [0038]), these features simply cannot be practically accomplished by a human mind with sufficient practical speed as to give rise to the improvements in map updating time nor the benefits of a valid map that can be used by an autonomous vehicle with sufficient confidence to navigate a sufficiently long route between waypoints in an environment.
Furthermore, Applicant points out that the term "abstract" refers to a level of specificity of the claims, and not merely to a particular category of subject matter that the claims include. The question of whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea is a question of whether the claims are so broadly written as to constitute an attempt to monopolize more than the inventor has actually invented. In other words, the question as to whether the claims are directed to abstract subject matter should be focused on whether claims are drafted to a specific invention or to a broad category into which the invention falls. The Federal Circuit has held that "describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule." Enfish, page 14 (also quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354, noting that "we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle [of laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas] lest it swallow all of patent law"). As pointed out by the Court in Alice, "an invention is not considered to be ineligible for patenting simply because it involves a judicial exception." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354. The USPTO has cautioned that "Examiners should accordingly be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) and claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)." MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)II (emphasis in original).
As noted by the Federal Circuit in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F. 3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018), while claims directed to a result itself are not patent-eligible, claims directed to a specific way of achieving that result are patent-eligible. In Finjan, the court found the claims to be "directed to a method of providing computer security by scanning a downloadable and attaching the results of that scan to the downloadable itself in the form of a 'security profile."' The court found the claims to be directed to patent eligible subject matter because the recited features claim an "operation [that] is distinguished from traditional, 'code-matching' virus scans that are limited to recognizing the presence of previously-identified viruses, typically by comparing the code in a downloadable to a database of known suspicious code." The court then found that the operation "constitutes an improvement in computer functionality," as it "can be used to protect against previously unknown viruses as well as 'obfuscated code."' In Finjan, the court concluded that the claims are patent eligible because they are not directed to a produced result, which by itself would not be patent-eligible, but instead the claims recite a specific way of achieving that result which is patent-eligible.
Like the claims at issue in Finjan, the current claims are not directed generally to an end result, but rather to a specific way of determining updated map data and invalid routes based at least in part on the combination of sensor data and projected annotations representing drivable and non-drivable surfaces. In other words, the claims are directed to a specific sequence of steps that results in achieving a desired end result rather than to the end result itself. Accordingly, as noted by the Federal Circuit, such claims are not directed to abstract subject matter.
The Claims Are Integrated into a Practical Application
If a claim is found to be directed to a judicial exception under Prong 1, the Office must then determine whether "the claim[s] recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application." MPEP 2106.04. The MPEP states that this evaluation is performed by "(1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application." MPEP, 2106.04(d) (emphasis added). Here, the Office alleges that the claim limitations only have "insignificant extra-solution activity that merely use a computer to perform the process." Office Action, pp. 12-13. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP states that "[o]ne way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Furthermore, the MPEP states that there is not one test but numerous decisions which can be relied upon to make such a determination as listed in MPEP 2106.05(a)- (c), (e)-(h). Id. As discussed in detail above (in response to the Examiner's Response), as well as below (with respect to Step 2B), Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite technology which both improves the functioning of a computer, as well as improves the technology of self- driving cars and specific improvements to the technical field of generating valid map data for the usage of autonomous vehicles. For instance, the Office is directed to at least paragraphs [0012], [0014], [0022], and [0038] of the instant specification in which various improvements are discussed with respect to computers and autonomous mobility technology.
Importantly, Step 2A Prong Two "excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity... elements that represent well- understood routine, conventional activity may integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application." MPEP 2106.04(d). Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that the steps recited by the claims such as "transmitting to an additional autonomous vehicle" (as recited by amended claim 5) are, as alleged by the Office, "well-understood routine, conventional activity," the claim language still integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by improving computing technology and autonomous vehicle technology.
Applicant also notes the similarities between the pending claims and claim 1 in Example 40 of the "2019 PEG Examples 37 through 42" (issued January 7, 2019). Example 40 of the 2019 PEG is directed to "A method for adaptive monitoring of traffic data through a network appliance connected between computing devices in a network," and includes the steps of "collecting, by the network appliance, traffic data relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance...,""comparing, by the network appliance, at least one of the collected traffic data to a predefined threshold; and collecting additional traffic data relating to the network traffic when the collected traffic data is greater than the predefined threshold...." This claim was deemed to integrate any judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2, and thus the 2019 PEG concluded that the example claim was eligible under § 101.
Similarly, independent claim 5 as amended herein recites specific determinations used for updating non-drivable areas on the map, specifically recites determining that a route is invalid based at least in part on the updated non-drivable areas on the map, and recites an autonomous vehicle controlled in response to the route being determined invalid, thereby improving computing and autonomous vehicle technology. Accordingly independent claim 5 integrates any abstract idea into a practical application.
As such, even if the Office were to maintain that the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong 1 of step 2A, which Applicant does not concede nor agree with, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are integrated into a practical application under Prong 2 of step 2A and are therefore patent eligible.
3. The Claims Recite Significantly More than the Alleged Abstract Idea Under Step 2B
Even if the claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, which Applicant submits the instant claims are not, the Office must then perform evaluations under Step 2B. Step 2B requires the Office to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception. MPEP, 2106.05. Of note, "[t]he Supreme Court has identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept." Two such examples are provided below:
[i]n determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim 'purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself' or 'any other technology or technical field.' MPEP §2106.05(a) citing Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014); and '[t]he courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility.' Id.
Importantly, the Office asserts that portions of the claims merely recite "insignificant extra- solution activity" and that such solutions are merely "well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field." Office Action, pp. 5, 14. However, the MPEP states that "Even if one or more additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity when considered individually, the combination of additional elements may amount to an inventive concept." MPEP, 2106.05(d)(I)(3), citing Bascom.
Regarding consideration of the features of a claim as a whole, in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. A T& TMobility LLC, the Federal Circuit emphasized that "[t]he inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. As is the case [in Bascom], an inventive concept can be found in the nonconventional and nongeneric arrangement of known, conventional pieces." Bascom, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (2016). Even though the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that "the limitations of the claims, when taken individually, recite generic computer and Internet components, none of which is inventive by itself' the Federal Circuit concluded that the claims, when properly considered in combination, had an inventive concept of the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each user. Id (emphasis added).
The MPEP sets out multiple relevant considerations for determining whether the claims, when viewed as a whole, amount to significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(a)-(h). Here, as in Bascom, the inventive concept is readily apparent when the claims are considered in combination, as they provide clear improvements to a computer and to the technical field of autonomous vehicles. The claimed features, when viewed as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea because many of the features of the claims are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the technological field of automated navigation and vehicle operation. The instant claims include a new and specific way of controlling an operation of a vehicle, including receiving a traffic control annotation comprising an indication of a first portion of the environment being a drivable surface and a second portion of the environment being a non-drivable surface; associating, as projected data, the traffic control annotation with the sensor data based at least in part on one or more of a position or orientation associated with a vehicle; determining, based at least in part on the projected data, an association between the sensor data and the traffic control annotation; updating the map data based at least in part on the association, the update comprising an updating indication of the non-drivable surface; determining, based at least in part on the updated indication of the non-drivable surface, that a portion of a route from a first waypoint to a second waypoint is invalid; transmitting the updated map data to an additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle configured to navigate the environment based at least in part on the updated map data and the portion of the route being determined to be invalid, wherein, based at least in part on the association, a planning component of the additional autonomous vehicle is configured to require a confidence value greater than a nominal confidence value with the sensor data for determining a planned trajectory for the additional vehicle; and the additional autonomous vehicle being controlled based on the planned trajectory. At least the combination of these operations recites significantly more than a mental process, as alleged in the Office Action.
As discussed in more detail above with respect to both the streamlined analysis and Prong 2 of step 2A, even assuming arguendo that the Office could carry its burden of establishing that the claims are directed to an abstract idea (which it cannot as described above) the claims in combination recite features that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea itself. For example, despite the recitation of "transmitting," these limitations are not merely "insignificant, extra-solution activity" as alleged by the Office because the transmission is to an autonomous vehicle configured to make use of the updated map and invalid route, in addition to comprising a planning component that determines a planned route based at least in part on the association between the traffic control annotation and the sensor data. Hence, these limitations comprise meaningful limitations and give rise to the previously-discussed improvements to the technologies of autonomous vehicles and the computing devices associated with these autonomous vehicles.
Accordingly, claims 5-14 and 16-21 are patent eligible, and Applicant respectfully requests the Office withdraw the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections.
The Examiners Response:
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding the claimed invention, the claims as of right now merely have a method that involves obtaining data from vehicles/probes on the road, using the data to determine changes in traffic annotations along with driving surfaces and updating the map to share with other vehicles. The claims do not make mention of the complexity and the processing resources involved, the complexity of properly determining routes to be invalid and the desired timeframe, it is the subject matter of the claims, not embodiments disclosed in the Specification, that we analyze. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]ny reliance on the specification in the § 101 analysis must always yield to the claim language. . . . [T]he specification cannot be used to import details from the specification if those details are not claimed.”). The claims as currently written, do have mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper as the current claims merely involve obtaining data, making determinations with the data and sending this data to other vehicles, furthermore, the inclusion of a computer/processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention, See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. at 223 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Furthermore, the improvement being argued in validating map data for autonomous vehicles is not claimed in the current claims and improving the abstract idea is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a *new* abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original)….even if the steps are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, the improvement is to the abstract idea rather than to computers or technology. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”).
In addition, the “transmitting” step is merely insignificant extra-solution activity as it involves sending the data which would be a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d), The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). Finally, the inclusion of the additional vehicle and how it may behave is merely an "apply it" scenario and insignificant post-solution activity as it can be constructed as a possible scenario that may happen after the transmission of the updated map, See MPEP 2106.04(d) The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). As such, even in combination, these additional elements, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 5-14 and 16-21 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 10 April 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) 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.
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 5-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method and claim 16 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, claims 5 and 16 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.
Independent claim 5 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 5 as discussed here. Claim 5 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving sensor data representing an environment;
receiving, based at least in part on the sensor data, map data indicating a traffic control annotation, wherein the traffic control annotation comprises an indication of a first portion of the environment and a second portion of the environment, the first portion of the environment being a drivable surface and the second portion of the environment being a non-drivable surface;
associating, as projected data, the traffic control annotation with the sensor data based at least in part on one or more of a position or orientation associated with a vehicle;
determining, based at least in part on the projected data, an association between the sensor data and the traffic control annotation;
updating, as updated map data, the map data based at least in part on the association, wherein the updated map data comprises an updated indication of the non-drivable surface;
receiving a route from a first waypoint to a second waypoint;
determining, based at least in part on the updated indication of the non-drivable surface, that a portion of the route is invalid;
and transmitting the updated map data to an additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle configured to navigate the environment based at least in part on the updated map data and the portion of the route being determined to be invalid, wherein, based at least in part on the association, a planning component of the additional autonomous vehicle is configured to require a confidence value greater than a nominal confidence value associated with the sensor data for determining a planned trajectory for the additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle being controlled based on the planned trajectory.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “associating…”, “determining …” and “updating…” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 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).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are 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 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method comprising:
receiving sensor data representing an environment;
receiving, based at least in part on the sensor data, map data indicating a traffic control annotation, wherein the traffic control annotation comprises an indication of a first portion of the environment and a second portion of the environment, the first portion of the environment being a drivable surface and the second portion of the environment being a non-drivable surface;
associating, as projected data, the traffic control annotation with the sensor data based at least in part on one or more of a position or orientation associated with a vehicle;
determining, based at least in part on the projected data, an association between the sensor data and the traffic control annotation;
updating, as updated map data, the map data based at least in part on the association, wherein the updated map data comprises an updated indication of the non-drivable surface;
receiving a route from a first waypoint to a second waypoint;
determining, based at least in part on the updated indication of the non-drivable surface, that a portion of the route is invalid;
and transmitting the updated map data to an additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle configured to navigate the environment based at least in part on the updated map data and the portion of the route being determined to be invalid, wherein, based at least in part on the association, a planning component of the additional autonomous vehicle is configured to require a confidence value greater than a nominal confidence value associated with the sensor data for determining a planned trajectory for the additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle being controlled based on the planned trajectory.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claim 16 further recites “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
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 a 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, 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 abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, 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 using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, 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 over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Furthermore, the transmitting step that includes the inclusion of the additional vehicle and how it may behave is merely an "apply it" scenario and insignificant post-solution activity as it can be constructed as a possible scenario that may happen after the transmission of the updated map, See MPEP 2106.04(d) The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 6-14 and 17-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. The dependent claims have additional steps such as “determining”, “updating”, “detecting”, “sending”, and “causing”. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 6-15 and 17-20 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 5-14 and 16-21 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-7, 10-11, 13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘286 (US 20220197286 A1) in view of Zhang ‘261 (US 20200393261 A1) in view of Di Cairano (US 20160375901 A1) in view of Li (US 20200109954 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang ‘286 teaches A method comprising (see at least [¶019]):
receiving sensor data representing an environment (Obtain sensor data from a vehicle that represents the environment. see at least [¶035, 037 & 047]);
receiving, based at least in part on the sensor data, map data indicating a traffic control annotation (Receiving map data that has traffic control annotations based on the obtained sensor data. see at least [¶089]);
associating, as projected data, the traffic control annotation with the sensor data based at least in part on one or more of a position or orientation associated with a vehicle (Associating as projected data, the traffic/lane markers with the obtained sensor data based on the localization of the vehicle. see at least [¶066-068, 072 & 076]);
determining, based at least in part on the projected data, an association between the sensor data and the traffic control annotation (Determining that there is an association between traffic/lane annotations from a map and the obtained sensor data based on the projected data. see at least [¶070-077]);
updating, as updated map data, the map data based at least in part on the association (Updating the map data from the inconsistency determined from the associated data. see at least [¶064, 071 & 084-090]);
receiving a route from a first waypoint to a second waypoint (Receiving a route from the current location to a desired destination. see at least [¶062 & 068]);
Zhang ‘286 does not explicitly teach wherein the traffic control annotation comprises an indication of a first portion of the environment and a second portion of the environment, the first portion of the environment being a drivable surface and the second portion of the environment being a non-drivable surface; wherein the updated map data comprises an updated indication of the non-drivable surface.
However, Zhang ‘261 does teach wherein the traffic control annotation comprises an indication of a first portion of the environment and a second portion of the environment, the first portion of the environment being a drivable surface and the second portion of the environment being a non-drivable surface (The traffic control annotation indicates that a first portion of the environment is a drivable surface while a second portion of the environment is a non-drivable surface (construction zone, closed lane, etc.…). see at least [¶0230-0231]);
wherein the updated map data comprises an updated indication of the non-drivable surface (The updated map can have an updated indication a non-drivable surface (construction zone, closed lane, etc.…), see at least [¶0230-0231, 0237 & 0239-0240]).
Zhang ‘261 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of updating maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286 to use the technique of having the traffic control annotation comprises an indication of a first portion of the environment and a second portion of the environment, the first portion of the environment being a drivable surface and the second portion of the environment being a non-drivable surface; wherein the updated map data comprises an updated indication of the non-drivable surface as taught by Zhang ‘261. Doing so would lead to improved safe navigation of autonomous vehicles with up-to-date maps (see at least [¶045]).
Zhang ‘286 and Zhang ‘261 do not explicitly teach determining, based at least in part on the updated indication of the non-drivable surface, that a portion of the route is invalid.
However, Di Cairano does teach determining, based at least in part on the updated indication of the non-drivable surface, that a portion of the route is invalid (Determining, based on the updated indication of a non-drivable surface, that a portion/section of the route is invalid and needs to be updated. see at least [¶082-085]).
Di Cairano would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of updating maps and controlling vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286 and Zhang ‘261 to use the technique of determining, based at least in part on the updated indication of the non-drivable surface, that a portion of the route is invalid as taught by Di Cairano. Doing so would lead to improved determination of a safe updated path for a vehicle (see at least [¶082]).
Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261 and Di Cairano do not explicitly teach and transmitting the updated map data to an additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle configured to navigate the environment based at least in part on the updated map data and the portion of the route being determined to be invalid, wherein, based at least in part on the association, a planning component of the additional autonomous vehicle is configured to require a confidence value greater than a nominal confidence value associated with the sensor data for determining a planned trajectory for the additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle being controlled based on the planned trajectory.
However, Li does teach transmitting the updated map data to an additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle configured to navigate the environment based at least in part on the updated map data and the portion of the route being determined to be invalid (Transmitting the updated map data for aiding in autonomous control of additional vehicles, with the additional vehicle using the updated map data (that can include updated portions of routes that are deemed invalid/inaccessible) for navigating an environment. see at least [¶0317, 0357-0359, 0386-0387, 0445-0447 & 0452-0459]).
wherein, based at least in part on the association, a planning component of the additional autonomous vehicle is configured to require a confidence value greater than a nominal confidence value associated with the sensor data for determining a planned trajectory for the additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle being controlled based on the planned trajectory (A vehicle receives the updated map when the data has a confidence value above a threshold and uses the updated map for determining a planned trajectory, with the additional vehicle (which can be an autonomous vehicle) being controlled based on the planned trajectory. The confidence value is associated with the sensor data obtained from different vehicles. see at least [¶0357-0359, 0445-0447 & 0452-0459]).
Li would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of updating maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261 and Di Cairano to use the technique of transmitting the updated map data to an additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle configured to navigate the environment based at least in part on the updated map data and the portion of the route being determined to be invalid, wherein, based at least in part on the association, a planning component of the additional autonomous vehicle is configured to require a confidence value greater than a nominal confidence value associated with the sensor data for determining a planned trajectory for the additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle being controlled based on the planned trajectory as taught by Li. Doing so would lead to improved use of an updated map with high confidence (see at least [¶0459]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li teach all of the limitations of Claims 5 and 16 as shown above, Furthermore, Zhang teaches detecting a traffic control indication associated with the sensor data (Sensor data is obtained from a vehicle with information on the environment which can include traffic control indications. see at least [¶035, 037 & 047]);
and determining a difference between the traffic control indication and the traffic control annotation (A difference is determined between traffic control indications in the sensor data and traffic control indications in the map. see at least [¶070-077]),
wherein updating the map data is based at least in part on the difference (A map is updated when a difference between sensor data and map data is high. see at least [¶064, 071 & 084-090]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li teach all of the limitations of Claims 5 and 16 as shown above, Furthermore, Zhang teaches wherein the traffic control annotation comprises one or more of: a lane boundary, a road surface marking, a traffic sign, a traffic light, or a crosswalk (Traffic control annotations in a map can include lane boundaries, road markings, traffic lights and traffic signals. see at least [¶035, 075-076 & 089]).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li teach all of the limitations of Claims 5 and 16 as shown above, Furthermore,, Zhang ‘261 teaches receiving timestamp data and localization data associated with the sensor data, wherein determining the association between the sensor data and the traffic control annotation is further based at least in part on the timestamp data and the localization data (Timestamp and localization data obtained from sensor data is used to determine an association/comparison between traffic objects and sensor data from vehicles. see at least [¶0126, 0144-0146, 0153, 0231-0233 & 0285]).
Zhang ‘261 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of updating maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286, Di Cairano and Li to use the technique of receiving timestamp data and localization data associated with the sensor data, wherein determining the association between the sensor data and the traffic control annotation is further based at least in part on the timestamp data and the localization data as taught by Zhang ‘261. Doing so would lead to improved safe navigation of autonomous vehicles with up-to-date maps (see at least [¶045]).
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li teach all of the limitations of Claims 5 and 16 as shown above, Furthermore, Zhang teaches wherein the sensor data comprises one or more of: image data, lidar data, radar data, or time of flight data (Sensor data can include Image, radar and lidar data. see at least [¶021]).
Regarding Claim 13 and 20, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li teach all of the limitations of Claims 5 and 16 as shown above, Furthermore, Zhang ‘261 sending, to a fleet of vehicles, the updated map data for use by the fleet of vehicles to traverse the environment (Updated map data is sent to a fleet of vehicles, with the vehicles using the data for navigation. see at least [¶044 & 0139]).
Zhang ‘261 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of updating maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286, Di Cairano and Li to use the technique of sending, to a fleet of vehicles, the updated map data for use by the fleet of vehicles to traverse the environment as taught by Zhang ‘261. Doing so would lead to improved safe navigation of autonomous vehicles with up-to-date maps (see at least [¶045]).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (see at least [¶013 & 019]):
receiving sensor data representing an environment (Obtain sensor data from a vehicle that represents the environment. see at least [¶035, 037 & 047]);
receiving, based at least in part on the sensor data, map data indicating a traffic control annotation (Receiving map data that has traffic control annotations based on the obtained sensor data. see at least [¶089]);
associating, as projected data, the traffic control annotation with the sensor data based at least in part on one or more of a position or orientation associated with a vehicle (Associating as projected data, the traffic/lane markers with the obtained sensor data based on the localization of the vehicle. see at least [¶066-068, 072 & 076]);
determining, based at least in part on the projected data, an association between the sensor data and the traffic control annotation (Determining that there is an association between traffic/lane annotations from a map and the obtained sensor data based on the projected data. see at least [¶070-077]);
updating, as updated map data, the map data based at least in part on the association (Updating the map data from the inconsistency determined from the associated data. see at least [¶064, 071 & 084-090]);
receiving a route from a first waypoint to a second waypoint (Receiving a route from the current location to a desired destination. see at least [¶062 & 068]);
Zhang ‘286 does not explicitly teach wherein the traffic control annotation comprises an indication of a first portion of the environment and a second portion of the environment, the first portion of the environment being a drivable surface and the second portion of the environment being a non-drivable surface; wherein the updated map data comprises an updated indication of the non-drivable surface.
However, Zhang ‘261 does teach wherein the traffic control annotation comprises an indication of a first portion of the environment and a second portion of the environment, the first portion of the environment being a drivable surface and the second portion of the environment being a non-drivable surface (The traffic control annotation indicates that a first portion of the environment is a drivable surface while a second portion of the environment is a non-drivable surface (construction zone, closed lane, etc.…). see at least [¶0230-0231]);
wherein the updated map data comprises an updated indication of the non-drivable surface (The updated map can have an updated indication a non-drivable surface (construction zone, closed lane, etc.…), see at least [¶0230-0231, 0237 & 0239-0240]).
Zhang ‘261 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of updating maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286 to use the technique of having the traffic control annotation comprises an indication of a first portion of the environment and a second portion of the environment, the first portion of the environment being a drivable surface and the second portion of the environment being a non-drivable surface; wherein the updated map data comprises an updated indication of the non-drivable surface as taught by Zhang ‘261. Doing so would lead to improved safe navigation of autonomous vehicles with up-to-date maps (see at least [¶045]).
Zhang ‘286 and Zhang ‘261 do not explicitly teach determining, based at least in part on the updated indication of the non-drivable surface, that a portion of the route is invalid.
However, Di Cairano does teach determining, based at least in part on the updated indication of the non-drivable surface, that a portion of the route is invalid (Determining, based on the updated indication of a non-drivable surface, that a portion/section of the route is invalid and needs to be updated. see at least [¶082-085]).
Di Cairano would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of updating maps and controlling vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286 and Zhang ‘261 to use the technique of determining, based at least in part on the updated indication of the non-drivable surface, that a portion of the route is invalid as taught by Di Cairano. Doing so would lead to improved determination of a safe updated path for a vehicle (see at least [¶082]).
Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261 and Di Cairano do not explicitly teach and transmitting the updated map data to an additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle configured to navigate the environment based at least in part on the updated map data and the portion of the route being determined to be invalid, wherein, based at least in part on the association, a planning component of the additional autonomous vehicle is configured to require a confidence value greater than a nominal confidence value associated with the sensor data for determining a planned trajectory for the additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle being controlled based on the planned trajectory.
However, Li does teach transmitting the updated map data to an additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle configured to navigate the environment based at least in part on the updated map data and the portion of the route being determined to be invalid (Transmitting the updated map data for aiding in autonomous control of additional vehicles, with the additional vehicle using the updated map data (that can include updated portions of routes that are deemed invalid/inaccessible) for navigating an environment. see at least [¶0317, 0357-0359, 0386-0387, 0445-0447 & 0452-0459]).
wherein, based at least in part on the association, a planning component of the additional autonomous vehicle is configured to require a confidence value greater than a nominal confidence value associated with the sensor data for determining a planned trajectory for the additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle being controlled based on the planned trajectory (A vehicle receives the updated map when the data has a confidence value above a threshold and uses the updated map for determining a planned trajectory, with the additional vehicle (which can be an autonomous vehicle) being controlled based on the planned trajectory. The confidence value is associated with the sensor data obtained from different vehicles. see at least [¶0357-0359, 0445-0447 & 0452-0459]).
Li would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of updating maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261 and Di Cairano to use the technique of transmitting the updated map data to an additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle configured to navigate the environment based at least in part on the updated map data and the portion of the route being determined to be invalid, wherein, based at least in part on the association, a planning component of the additional autonomous vehicle is configured to require a confidence value greater than a nominal confidence value associated with the sensor data for determining a planned trajectory for the additional autonomous vehicle, the additional autonomous vehicle being controlled based on the planned trajectory as taught by Li. Doing so would lead to improved use of an updated map with high confidence (see at least [¶0459]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘286 (US 20220197286 A1) in view of Zhang ‘261 (US 20200393261 A1) in view of Di Cairano (US 20160375901 A1) in view of Li (US 20200109954 A1) in further view of Averilla (US 20200132477 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li teach all of the limitations of Claim 5 as shown above, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li do not explicitly teach wherein the traffic control annotation is indicative of a traffic rule associated with the drivable surface of the environment upon which the vehicle is operating.
However, Averilla does teach wherein the traffic control annotation is indicative of a traffic rule associated with the drivable surface of the environment upon which the vehicle is operating (A map contains semantic information which includes information of traffic control annotations that indicate that an area is a drivable surface for a vehicle. see at least [¶0117, 0147-0149, 0196 & 0200-0202]).
Averilla would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of updating maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li to use the technique of having the traffic control annotation indicative of a traffic rule associated with the drivable surface of the environment upon which the vehicle is operating as taught by Averilla. Doing so would lead to improved navigation of vehicles with updated maps showing changes in areas (see at least [¶072]).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li teach all of the limitations of Claim 5 as shown above, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li do not explicitly teach further comprising receiving altitude data associated with the environment, wherein the associating, as the projected data, the traffic control annotation with the sensor data is further based at least in part on the altitude data (Altitude data obtained from vehicle sensors is used to associate map objects in the environment with sensor data from the vehicle. see at least [¶0147 & 0163-0165]).
Averilla would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of updating maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li to use the technique of receiving altitude data associated with the environment, wherein the associating, as the projected data, the traffic control annotation with the sensor data is further based at least in part on the altitude data as taught by Averilla. Doing so would lead to improved navigation of vehicles by updating maps with recent changes (see at least [¶072]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘286 (US 20220197286 A1) in view of Zhang ‘261 (US 20200393261 A1) in view of Di Cairano (US 20160375901 A1) in view of Li (US 20200109954 A1) in further view of Edwards (US 20210164790 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li teach all of the limitations of Claim 5 as shown above, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li do not explicitly teach determining that the drivable surface of the environment is invalid for use by the vehicle based at least in part on a characteristic associated with the drivable surface that is indicated in the sensor data, the characteristic comprising at least one of a width, surface composition, or condition associated with the drivable surface; and updating a visualization of the map data to indicate that the drivable surface is invalid for use by the vehicle.
However, Edwards does teach determining that the drivable surface of the environment is invalid for use by the vehicle based at least in part on a characteristic associated with the drivable surface that is indicated in the sensor data, the characteristic comprising at least one of a width, surface composition, or condition associated with the drivable surface (Determining that a road/surface in an environment is invalid for a vehicle to drive on based on characteristics that are determined from sensor data collected from a vehicle. These characteristics can include surface composition and conditions. see at least [¶015-020, 025 & 052-055]);
and updating a visualization of the map data to indicate that the drivable surface is invalid for use by the vehicle (Map data is updated to provide users/vehicles with visualization/identifiers that a road is invalid for a vehicle to drive through. see at least [¶011, 020, 024, 051 & 057]).
Edwards would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of updating maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li to use the technique of determining that the drivable surface of the environment is invalid for use by the vehicle based at least in part on a characteristic associated with the drivable surface that is indicated in the sensor data, the characteristic comprising at least one of a width, surface composition, or condition associated with the drivable surface; and updating a visualization of the map data to indicate that the drivable surface is invalid for use by the vehicle as taught by Edwards. Doing so would lead to improved efficiency in navigation while evading invalid roads (see at least [¶011]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘286 (US 20220197286 A1) in view of Zhang ‘261 (US 20200393261 A1) in view of Di Cairano (US 20160375901 A1) in view of Li (US 20200109954 A1) in further view of Okumura (US 20160139594 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li teach all of the limitations of Claim 5 as shown above, Furthermore, Zhang teaches detecting a traffic control indication associated with the sensor data (Sensor data is obtained from a vehicle with information on the environment which can include traffic control indications. see at least [¶035, 037 & 047]);
and determining a difference between the traffic control indication and the traffic control annotation (A difference is determined between traffic control indications in the sensor data and traffic control indications in the map. see at least [¶070-077]),
Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li do not explicitly teach and sending a request for guidance to a computing device of a teleoperations system associated with the vehicle.
However, Okumura does teach and sending a request for guidance to a computing device of a teleoperations system associated with the vehicle (A request for remote guidance of a vehicle is sent to a remote operator when sensor data indicates an unexpected condition. see at least [¶024-029]).
Okumura would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of remote operation of an AV. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li to use the technique of sending a request for guidance to a computing device of a teleoperations system associated with the vehicle as taught by Okumura. Doing so would lead to improved control of an AV in challenging situations (see at least [¶039]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘286 (US 20220197286 A1) in view of Zhang ‘261 (US 20200393261 A1) in view of Di Cairano (US 20160375901 A1) in view of Li (US 20200109954 A1) in further view of Uno (US 20210231460 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li teach all of the limitations of Claim 5 as shown above, Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li do not explicitly teach wherein the associating as projected data comprises projecting, based at least in part on one or more of a position or orientation associated with the vehicle, the map data onto a first image frame, wherein the first image frame is based at least in part on the sensor data.
However, Uno does teach wherein the associating as projected data comprises projecting, based at least in part on one or more of a position or orientation associated with the vehicle, the map data onto a first image frame, wherein the first image frame is based at least in part on the sensor data (Projecting the image data from the vehicle sensor onto the map data, based on the position and posture of the vehicle, and associating the projected data to determine if there is a difference in the structures/traffic infrastructure. see at least [¶036-031, 046, 053-054 & 072]).
Uno would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of detecting changes in maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang ‘286, Zhang ‘261, Di Cairano and Li to use the technique of having the associating as projected data comprises projecting, based at least in part on one or more of a position or orientation associated with the vehicle, the map data onto a first image frame, wherein the first image frame is based at least in part on the sensor data as taught by Uno. Doing so would lead to improved autonomous navigation with improved maps (see at least [¶074]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USING HIGH DEFINITION MAPS FOR GENERATING SYNTHETIC SENSOR DATA FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES (US 20210004017 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-3752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821. 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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights