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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 17, and 25 have been amended. Claim(s) 3-9, 19-23, 30, and 32 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1-2, 10-18, 24-29, 31, and 33-34 are pending examination. Regarding the objection of claim 16. Applicant’s argument has been noted. The objection will remain for the time being however, if the application is found to be allowable at a future date, the objection will be removed and the claim will be renumbered by the examiner to remove the issue.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejection of the claims is improper. Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach all claimed limitations. In particular the applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach, “a weighted value of the environmental data from each of the sensors,” and “wherein the variation amount is at least one of a variation of: a movement distance of the to-be-updated map element; a variation of at least one of a height, a length, or a width of the to-be-updated map element or a status variation of the to-be-updated map element.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 10-18, 24-29, 31, and 33-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. After further search and consideration the examiner would rely on newly cited art and/or newly cited sections of previously cited art.
Regarding the claim limitations of, “a weighted value of the environmental data from each of the sensors,” in claims 11 and 24, and “wherein the first vehicle is configured to adjust a weighted value of the environmental data based on a current environment of the first vehicle,” in claims 1, 17, and 25; the examiner would rely on the newly cited art of Afrouzi (US Pat 11,393,114) to teach this limitation. Looking at Afrouzi Col. 14, lines 14-37; it is taught that a processor can determine based on the current environmental conditions, weights for sensed values based on the sensors that produce them. This allows for the processor to account for all kinds of environmental conditions and exclude and/or include the data that is most accurate. This process weights a variety of environmental factors, i.e. light level, noise, wetness, etc., and chooses the best sensor data to be used to construct a map of the environment. In light of this the examiner would find the weighting limitation as obvious in view of the prior art.
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein the variation amount is at least one of a variation of a movement distance of the to-be-updated map element; a variation of at least one of a height, a length, or a width of the to-be-updated map element or a status variation of the to-be-updated map element,” in claims 1, 17, and 25; the examiner would rely on newly cited portions of Wheeler to teach this limitation. Looking at [0108] and [0151], Wheeler teaches “For example, the HD map system 110 determines whether one or more attributes (e.g., a location, a geometric shape, a semantic information) of an existing landmark object needs to be changed,” [0108]. This would at least teach variations of the location and/or changes in the shape of a previously detected element. This would be analogous to a variation of movement distance and the height/length/width of the prior detected object. [0151] teaches “if the additional data pertains a lane of a road which has temporarily closed due to construction work nearby, the online HD map system 110 may update the map to indicate that lane of that road as temporarily closed.” This would teach a status variation as understood by the examiner. Lanes changing from open to close or vice-versa would be a status change and therefore Wheeler would teach at least one element of what a variation is expected to be.
In light of the teachings applied here, the examiner finds independent claims 1, 11, 17, 24, and 25 as obvious in light of various prior arts. Please see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections -35 USC 103,” for further detailed mapping and explanation. Dependent claims would be rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter.
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) 11-16, 24, 26-27, and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US PG Pub 2018/0188037) in view of Afrouzi (US Pat 11,393,114).
Regarding claim 11, Wheeler teaches a map update method, comprising: receiving, by a terminal device disposed in a first vehicle, (Fig. 2 item 120, and [0042] teach the vehicle having a computing device within the vehicle itself; [0043] teaches a module in the computer that is configured to receive sensor data) environmental data from sensors of the first vehicle, ([0038] teaches the vehicle can receive environmental information from the sensors of the vehicle as it travels) wherein the environmental data comprises image data and measurement data; ([0038] teaches the vehicle sensors having multiple types of sensors including cameras and LiDAR. The cameras can capture image data and the LiDAR can measure distances to objects in the environment)
adjusting, by the terminal device and based on a current environment of the first vehicle, ([0137]-[0139] teaches a ranking module that ranks the vehicles and their respective data gathered, i.e. a weighting system [0149] furthers this ranking system by adjusting the ranking of the vehicles based on some form of environmental data present at the time of data gathering and adjusting the data to indicate the differing environment)
comparing, by the terminal device, the adjusted environmental data to prestored map data to determine whether the adjusted environmental data matches the prestored map data; ([0055] teaches the system to be comparing the sensed data to prestored map data; [0149]-[0153] teach using the collected data to compare it to the currently saved map data)
generating, by the terminal device when the adjusted environmental data does not match the prestored map data, map update information, ([0055] teaches the computer system generating a map update message when the data does not match) wherein the map update information comprises:
a category of the to-be-updated map element, ([0055] teaches the map discrepancy module can code in a “type of discrepancy” when sending the server a detected error)
a coordinate position of a to-be-updated map element on a first map of a first preset area, ([0055] teaches that the “map discrepancy module can communicate the location of the detected map error; [0049] further teaches that the vehicle uses a localization system to determine its exact location; [0083]-[0084] teaches that the system can determine coordinates for “landmarks” and compare them to expected coordinates to determine errors)
a variation of the to-be-updated map element on the map, ([0055] teaches that the system can determine a “magnitude of discrepancy” which is understood to be a variation)
an impact level that is of a vehicle traveling and that corresponds to the to- be-updated map element, ([0058] teaches the “map discrepancy module” will determine an “urgency” of the map discrepancy where the urgency relates to the impact that the map error may have) wherein the impact level affects traveling safety of the vehicle, ([0058] teaches the urgency is related to the size of the error and the impact it will have on traveling. This is understood to also teach the impact is related to the safety of vehicles travelling on the road) and
a data source of the to-be-updated map element; ([0055] teaches the “map discrepancy module” can include a “vehicle ID” in the message to the server which would be understood to be a data source of a map element) and
reporting, by the terminal device, the map update information to a cloud server, ([0055] teaches the terminal device of the vehicle reporting this information to an HD map server) wherein the cloud server provides map data to the first vehicle. ([0054] teaches that the HD map store will provide map information to all vehicles it is connected to)
Wheeler does not teach adjusting…a weighted value of the environmental data from each of the sensors.
However, Afrouzi teaches “adjusting… a weighted value of the environmental data from each of the sensors.” (Col. 14, lines 14-37; teach the use of various kinds of sensors, with a processor configured to adjust weighting values of the sensors in response of the environment it is operating in.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler with Afrouzi; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the area of map updating and gathering data to update those maps using vehicles. As Afrouzi teaches in Col. 14, lines 14-37, “certain sensing devices are more accurate than others under particular conditions.” The need to use different sensors and/or weights for the sensed data ensures that the correct data is used for new mapping elements. This prevents erroneous data from being included in the map and/or updates for the maps. This ensures map accuracy for vehicle usage.
Regarding claim 12, Wheeler teaches the map update method of claim 11, wherein the map update information further comprises at least one: a time length a continuous mismatch, (0093] teaches the system determining that there is a mismatch in an environment and can compare it to a map version ID, i.e. how long the mismatch has existed)
a first time when a map element mismatch is detected, ([0093] teaches the system detecting a time of a mismatch being detected)
a second time when the map update information is reported, ([0055 teaches the system including a timestamp in a message of when it is reporting information to the server) or
a confidence of the map update information. ([0066] teaches the system determining a confidence value that the map information is in need of an update)
Regarding claim 13, Wheeler teaches the map update method claim 11, further comprising receiving an updated map from the cloud server, ([0032] teaches that the HD map server can send map information to the vehicle, i.e. the vehicle receives map information from the cloud server) wherein the updated map is based on the map update information and a map measurement result from a detection device, ([0064] teaches the system sending updated map data to vehicles, after receiving the map data from a detection device) and wherein the detection device is located in a first preset area at the coordinate position. ([0036]-[0037] teach the map server sending information based on the system being in a specific coordinate location)
Regarding claim 14, Wheeler teaches the map update method of claim 13, wherein the detection device comprises a second vehicle or a roadside device, and wherein the second vehicle is an online vehicle configured to use the map. (Fig. 1 and [0032] teach multiple vehicles connected to the mapping system all of the vehicles are configured in the same manner and have the same computing systems. Therefore as taught in [0057] when the map discrepancy module received instructions to collect data this instruction could be sent to any one of the vehicles that are a part of the system)
Regarding claim 15, Wheeler teaches the map update method of claim 11, further comprising receiving an updated map from the cloud server, ([0032] teaches that the HD map server can send map information to the vehicle, i.e. the vehicle receives map information from the cloud server) wherein the updated map is based on the map data collected by a third vehicle. (Fig. 1 and [0032] teach multiple vehicles connected to the mapping system all of the vehicles are configured in the same manner and have the same computing systems. Therefore as taught in [0057] when the map discrepancy module received instructions to collect data this instruction could be sent to any one of the vehicles that are a part of the system, i.e. a third vehicle)
Regarding claim 16, Wheeler teaches the map update method of claim 13, wherein before receiving the updated map, the map update method further comprises sending a map update request to the cloud server. ([0032] teaches the vehicle system as sending a request to the HD map server before receiving the map data)
Regarding claim 24, Wheeler teaches a communications apparatus disposed in a first vehicle, (Fig. 2 item 120, and [0042] teach the vehicle having a computing device within the vehicle itself; configured to communicate with a server) comprising: a processor; ([0169]-[0171] teach a processor) and
a memory configured to store instructions to be executed by the processor to cause the communications apparatus to: ([0169]-[0171] teach the system having a memory configured to store instructions that a processor can execute)
receive environmental data from sensors of the first vehicle, ([0038] teaches the vehicle can receive environmental information from the sensors of the vehicle as it travels) wherein the environmental data comprises image data and measurement data; ([0038] teaches the vehicle sensors having multiple types of sensors including cameras and LiDAR. The cameras can capture image data and the LiDAR can measure distances to objects in the environment)
adjust, based on a current environment of the first vehicle, ([0137]-[0139] teaches a ranking module that ranks the vehicles and their respective data gathered, i.e. a weighting system [0149] furthers this ranking system by adjusting the ranking of the vehicles based on some form of environmental data present at the time of data gathering and adjusting the data to indicate the differing environment)
compare the adjusted environmental data to prestored map data to determine whether the adjusted environmental data matches the prestored map data; ([0055] teaches the system to be comparing the sensed data to prestored map data; [0149]-[0153] teach using the collected data to compare it to the currently saved map data)
generate, when the adjusted environmental data does not match the prestored map data, map update information, ([0055] teaches the computer system generating a map update message when the data does not match) wherein the map update information comprises:
a category of the to-be-updated map element, ([0055] teaches the map discrepancy module can code in a “type of discrepancy” when sending the server a detected error)
a coordinate position of a to-be-updated map element on a first map of a first preset area, ([0055] teaches that the “map discrepancy module can communicate the location of the detected map error; [0049] further teaches that the vehicle uses a localization system to determine its exact location; [0083]-[0084] teaches that the system can determine coordinates for “landmarks” and compare them to expected coordinates to determine errors)
a variation of the to-be-updated map element on the map, ([0055] teaches that the system can determine a “magnitude of discrepancy” which is understood to be a variation)
an impact level that is of a vehicle traveling and that corresponds to the to- be-updated map element, ([0058] teaches the “map discrepancy module” will determine an “urgency” of the map discrepancy where the urgency relates to the impact that the map error may have) wherein the impact level affects traveling safety of the vehicle, ([0058] teaches the urgency is related to the size of the error and the impact it will have on traveling. This is understood to also teach the impact is related to the safety of vehicles travelling on the road) and
a data source of the to-be-updated map element; ([0055] teaches the “map discrepancy module” can include a “vehicle ID” in the message to the server which would be understood to be a data source of a map element) and
reporting the map update information to a cloud server. ([0055] teaches the terminal device of the vehicle reporting this information to an HD map server)
Wheeler does not teach adjusting…a weighted value of the environmental data from each of the sensors.
However, Afrouzi teaches “adjusting… a weighted value of the environmental data from each of the sensors.” (Col. 14, lines 14-37; teach the use of various kinds of sensors, with a processor configured to adjust weighting values of the sensors in response of the environment it is operating in.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler with Afrouzi; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the area of map updating and gathering data to update those maps using vehicles. As Afrouzi teaches in Col. 14, lines 14-37, “certain sensing devices are more accurate than others under particular conditions.” The need to use different sensors and/or weights for the sensed data ensures that the correct data is used for new mapping elements. This prevents erroneous data from being included in the map and/or updates for the maps. This ensures map accuracy for vehicle usage.
Regarding claim 26, Wheeler teaches the communications apparatus of claim 24, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions to further cause the communications apparatus to receive an updated map from the cloud server, ([0032] teaches that the HD map server can send map information to the vehicle, i.e. the vehicle receives map information from the cloud server) and wherein the updated map is based on the map data collected by a third vehicle. (Fig. 1 and [0032] teach multiple vehicles connected to the mapping system all of the vehicles are configured in the same manner and have the same computing systems. Therefore as taught in [0057] when the map discrepancy module received instructions to collect data this instruction could be sent to any one of the vehicles that are a part of the system, i.e. a third vehicle)
Regarding claim 27, Wheeler teaches the communications apparatus of claim 24, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions to further cause the communications apparatus to send sending a map update request to the cloud server. ([0032] teaches the vehicle system as sending a request to the HD map server before receiving the map data)
Regarding claim 33, Wheeler teaches the map update method of claim 11, wherein the current environment of the first vehicle comprises at least one of current weather or ambient light levels. ([0149] teaches that the vehicles ranking, i.e. weighting, is directly correlated to the time of day and direction of sunlight which is analogous to ambient light level)
Regarding claim 34, Wheeler teaches the communications apparatus of claim 24, wherein the current environment of the first vehicle comprises at least one of current weather or ambient light levels. ([0149] teaches that the vehicles ranking, i.e. weighting, is directly correlated to the time of day and direction of sunlight which is analogous to ambient light level)
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, 17-18, 21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US PG Pub 2018/0188037) in view of Reschka, (US PG Pub 2020/0310450) Kim, (KR-101-661-163-B1) and Afrouzi (US Pat 11,393,114).
Regarding claim 1, Wheeler teaches a map update method, comprising: obtaining, by a cloud server, map update information from a first vehicle, ([0055] teaches a cloud server 110 receiving a map update information from a first vehicle) wherein the first vehicle is an automatic driving vehicle ([0032] and [0038] teach the vehicle being an autonomous vehicle) and configured to receive environmental data from sensors of the first vehicle, ([0038] teaches the vehicle can receive environmental information from the sensors of the vehicle as it travels) wherein the first vehicle is configured to ([0055] teaches that the “map discrepancy module” can determine that the sensor data collected by the vehicle as it moves through a specific area does not match prestored map information) wherein the map update information comprises a coordinate position of a to-be-updated map element on a first map of a first preset area, ([0055] teaches that the “map discrepancy module can communicate the location of the detected map error; [0049] further teaches that the vehicle uses a localization system to determine its exact location; [0083]-[0084] teaches that the system can determine coordinates for “landmarks” and compare them to expected coordinates to determine errors) a category of the to-be-updated map element, ([0055] teaches the map discrepancy module can code in a “type of discrepancy” when sending the server a detected error) a variation of the to-be-updated map element on the first map, ([0055] teaches that the system can determine a “magnitude of discrepancy” which is understood to be a variation) an impact level that is of a vehicle traveling and that corresponds to the to- be-updated map element, ([0058] teaches the “map discrepancy module” will determine an “urgency” of the map discrepancy where the urgency relates to the impact that the map error may have) and wherein the impact level affects traveling safety of the vehicle, ([0058] teaches the urgency is related to the size of the error and the impact it will have on traveling. This is understood to also teach the impact is related to the safety of vehicles travelling on the road) and a data source of the to-be-updated map element; ([0055] teaches the “map discrepancy module” can include a “vehicle ID” in the message to the server which would be understood to be a data source of a map element)
sending, by the cloud server, a map measurement instruction to a detection device in the first preset area at the coordinate position based on the map update information, ([0057] teaches the vehicle receiving, i.e. server sending, instructions to measure map information at a specific coordinate location along the route) wherein the map measurement instruction instructs the detection device to detect and report map measurement information of a second preset area at the coordinate position, and wherein the second preset area is smaller than the first preset area; ([0057] teaches the instructions to measure map information may be at a specific location, i.e. second area, along a vehicle’s route, i.e. first area. The specific location along a route would be smaller than the first area)
obtaining, by the cloud server, the map measurement information from the detection device in response to the map measurement instruction; ([0057] teaches that once the vehicle has collected the requested data along the route it may transmit the data to the server, i.e. the server obtains the data)
performing, by the cloud server, information processing on the map update information and the map measurement information ([0134]-[0135] teaches the system performing information analysis on the received map information) to determine a variation of amount of the to-be-updated map element on the first map, ([0123]-[0124] teaches comparing the discrepancy detected to a threshold meaning determining the extent of a variation detected) wherein the variation amount is at least one of:
a movement distance of the to-be-updated map element; ([0108] teaches determining that the position of a map element is different and therefore needs to be updated)
a variation of at least one of a height, a length, or a width of the to-be-updated map element; ([0108] teaches that the shape of a map element has changed and needs to be updated) or
a status variation of the to-be-updated map element; ([0151] teaches that the status of a lane has changed from open to closed or vice-versa, and needs to be updated)
updating, by the cloud server, the first map when the variation amount of the to-be-updated map element is greater than or equal to a preset update threshold corresponding to the to-be-updated map element, wherein the preset update threshold corresponds to attribute information of the to- be-updated map element; ([0151]-[0154] teaches updating the map element when it is deemed by the system to be too varied, this can be based on exceeding a time threshold or as taught in [0149] based on some kind of environmental factor such as ambient light levels being optimal for updating)
.
Wheeler does not teach adjust a weighted value the environmental data based on a current environment of the first vehicle; lowering, by the cloud server when the to-be-updated map element does not meet a map precision requirement, a vehicle automatic driving level from an initial automatic driving level to a lower automatic driving level, wherein whether the to-be-updated map element meets the map precision requirement is based on the map update information and the map measurement information, wherein the vehicle automatic driving level corresponds to precision of a second map of the first preset area, and wherein the lower automatic driving level provides at least some driving support; and delivering, by the cloud server using a delivery manner based on the impact level the second map to at least one vehicle, wherein the impact level relates to traveling safety of the vehicle, wherein when the impact level is a first priority level, the delivery manner is period manner or query-based manner, and wherein when the impact level is a second priority level, the delivery manner is immediate manner, wherein the second priority level is higher than the first priority level.
However, Reschka teaches “lowering, by the cloud server when the to-be-updated map element does not meet a map precision requirement, a vehicle automatic driving level from an initial automatic driving level to a lower automatic driving level, wherein whether the to-be-updated map element meets the map precision requirement is based on the map update information and the map measurement information, wherein the vehicle automatic driving level corresponds to precision of a second map of the first preset area” ([0021] teaches the idea of undrivable regions for autonomous vehicles based on new map data, these regions limit autonomy functions based on their familiarity to existing regions; [0026] and [0028] teach lowering the autonomy levels based on the area the lowering may reduce the helpful features of a vehicle. In particular [0028] teaches a continuous monitoring of an area which can cause in real time the driving level to be lowered) and “wherein the lower automatic driving level provides at least some driving support.” (0026] teaches the driver levels may limit some features of the automatic driving vehicle but not all need to be limited)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler with Reschka; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the area of map updating and gathering data to update those maps using vehicles. As Reschka teaches in [0021] the lack of concrete data in an area can lead to areas that an autonomous vehicle should not navigate. And in [0017] they teach that this lack of data can lead to safety concerns for the vehicle and passengers. By ensuring that a vehicle can only travel in areas it has an appropriate amount of data, the system can provide the safest driving experience for all parties involved. Limiting updates until a request is received will additionally prevent large data transmissions when it’s inappropriate and will further allow for the system to prevent updates in the middle of navigation, limiting safety failures due to data loss and transmission error.
Neither Wheeler nor Reschka teaches adjust a weighted value the environmental data based on a current environment of the first vehicle; delivering, by the cloud server using a delivery manner based on the impact level the second map to at least one vehicle, wherein the impact level relates to traveling safety of the vehicle, wherein when the impact level is a first priority level, the delivery manner is period manner or query-based manner, and wherein when the impact level is a second priority level, the delivery manner is immediate manner, wherein the second priority level is higher than the first priority level.
However, Kim teaches “delivering, by the cloud server using a delivery manner based on the impact level the second map to at least one vehicle, wherein the impact level relates to traveling safety of the vehicle, wherein when the impact level is a first priority level, the delivery manner is period manner or query-based manner” ([0062] teaches the delivery as a periodic update over a predetermined period in the event that it is a general road update) “wherein when the impact level is a second priority level, the delivery manner is immediate manner,” ([0062] teaches a direct delivery of emergency data when it is important to the driver such as accident or road interruption) and “wherein the second priority level is higher than the first priority level.” ([0062] teaches the delivery of data in either an emergency or batch situation, the emergency situation is analogous to the second priority level and is therefore a higher priority than the batch data as Kim teaches the immediate need of this data)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler and Reschka with Kim; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to updating the map data of vehicle systems and the respective servers that provide the information to the driver. In Kim [0009] they teach a system that can update a map server to ensure that a driver of subsequent vehicles has the most up to date information for maintaining their safety and ensuring that the routing is proper. As Kim teaches in [0062] some information is super important to get to a driver ASAP and therefore needs to be updated as soon as the system realizes. This ensures safe driving and precents further problems from developing on the road.
The combination of Wheeler, Reschka, and Kim does not teach adjust a weighted value the environmental data based on a current environment of the first vehicle.
However, Afrouzi teaches “adjust a weighted value the environmental data based on a current environment of the first vehicle.” (Col. 14, lines 14-37; teach the use of various kinds of sensors, with a processor configured to adjust weighting values of the sensors in response of the environment it is operating in.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler, Reschka, and Kim with Afrouzi; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the area of map updating and gathering data to update those maps using vehicles. As Afrouzi teaches in Col. 14, lines 14-37, “certain sensing devices are more accurate than others under particular conditions.” The need to use different sensors and/or weights for the sensed data ensures that the correct data is used for new mapping elements. This prevents erroneous data from being included in the map and/or updates for the maps. This ensures map accuracy for vehicle usage.
Claims 17 and 25 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wheeler, Reschka, and Afrouzi, teaches the map update method of claim 1.
The combination of Wheeler, Reschka, and Afrouzi does not teach does not teach the delivery manner is direct delivery when the impact level is a severe level, and wherein the delivery manner is periodic delivery or delivery based on a map update request when the impact level is a general level.
However, Kim teaches “the delivery manner is direct delivery when the impact level is a severe level;” ([0062] teaches a direct delivery of emergency data when it is important to the driver such as accident or road interruption) or “the delivery manner is periodic delivery or delivery based on a map update request when the impact level is a general level.” ([0062] teaches the delivery as a periodic update over a predetermined period in the event that it is a general road update)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler, Reschka, and Afrouzi with Kim; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to updating the map data of vehicle systems and the respective servers that provide the information to the driver. In Kim [0009] they teach a system that can update a map server to ensure that a driver of subsequent vehicles has the most up to date information for maintaining their safety and ensuring that the routing is proper. As Kim teaches in [0062] some information is super important to get to a driver ASAP and therefore needs to be updated as soon as the system realizes. This ensures safe driving and precents further problems from developing on the road.
Claims 18 is substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 10, Wheeler teaches the map update method of claim 1, wherein the detection device comprises a second vehicle or a roadside device, and wherein the second vehicle is an online vehicle configured to use at least one of the first map or the second map. (Fig. 1 and [0032] teach multiple vehicles connected to the mapping system all of the vehicles are configured in the same manner and have the same computing systems. Therefore as taught in [0057] when the map discrepancy module received instructions to collect data this instruction could be sent to any one of the vehicles that are a part of the system. Any vehicle could be configured to use any map provided by the system)
Claim(s) 28-29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler, Reschka, Kim, and Afrouzi in view of SAEJ3016.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Wheeler, Reschka, Kim, and Afrouzi teaches the map update method of claim 1.
The combination of Wheeler, Reschka, Kim, and Afrouzi does not teach wherein the vehicle automatic driving level comprises at least six classification levels: no automation (LO), driving support (L1), partial automation (L2), conditional automation (L3), high automation (L4), and full automation (L5).
However, SAE teaches “wherein the vehicle automatic driving level comprises at least six classification levels: no automation (LO), driving support (L1), partial automation (L2), conditional automation (L3), high automation (L4), and full automation (L5).” (Table 1. Page 19; teaches six levels of vehicle autonomation ranging from no autonomy to full autonomy and match all levels as taught)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler, Reschka, Kim, and Afrouzi with SAE; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All the arts relate to control of vehicles in autonomous situations. SAE is a document published by the Society of Automotive engineers. This document is the standard guidelines established for the autonomy of vehicles and serves as a document that would be a standard. This standard document is well known by automotive engineers and the levels would be a good baseline for any vehicle that has multiple levels of autonomy.
Claims 29 and 31 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665