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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 2, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on October 28, 2025. Claims 1-5 are currently pending. Claim 4 is cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on October 28, 2025 have not overcome the prior art rejections for the reasons below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the applicant’s arguments on pages 4-6, applicant argues “…Asakura does not disclose, teach, suggest, ‘A map providing system that provides map data comprising a processor configured to ... select the range including a branch road or a junction road as the update point based on information on a branch point and a junction point in a route,’” due to the fact that the [0076]-[0078] as reference in the non-final rejection dated August 1, 2025 does not specifically mention updating based on freshness, but rather indicates in which areas the vehicle can drive based on freshness. The examiner agrees with the assessment of [0076]-[0078] of Asakura. However, the examiner disagrees with the conclusion made by the applicant in view of the rejection of claim 1. As shown below, Claim 1 discloses determining the freshness of a map and updating the maps based on the freshness values. When viewed in combination with [0076]-[0078], it can be inferred that those regions being analyzed (e.g. M1 & M3) may be updated with the above method in addition to the vehicle determining which areas the vehicle can drive based on that freshness value. For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP 2017007572, to Asakura et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Asakura discloses A map providing system that provides map data comprising a processor configured to: store a first map (Asakura [0030] & [0033], Examiner Note: Asakura discloses the vehicle control device 100 being a processor. Asakura discloses a navigation-side storage unit 125 (i.e. first map storage portion) which stores a navigation map 126 (i.e. first map));
store a second map (Asakura [0039], Examiner Note: and a high-precision map 136 (i.e. second map)); and
compare the second map with update data of the second map received from a server (Asakura [0039] & [0062]-[0063] & Fig. 11, Examiner Note: Asakura discloses comparing updated information of the navigation map (i.e. first map) with the of the high-precision map (i.e. second map), which is not up-to-date. This data that is different between the maps (i.e. update data) is used to update the high-precision map. Asakura discloses an navigation-side storage unit 125 (i.e. server) which contains the navigation map).
receive a list of segments of the update data from the server responsive to determining a difference between the second map and the update data of the second map wherein each segment in the list of segments comprises a different portion of map data of the second map (Asakura [0069], Examiner Note: Asakura discloses receiving differences (i.e. segment lists), such as road shape, direction and size (i.e. different portion of map data), between the maps);
select a segment from the list of segments based on a range as an update point to update map data on the second map according to a predetermined rule (Asakura [0055]-[0065], [0069], & Fig. 9, Examiner Note: Asakura discloses determining the freshness of a road (e.g. road shape) if it is within a reference value (i.e. range which is a predetermined rule). Further, Asakura discloses a determination unit 140 (i.e. map update portion) which compares (i.e. manages) the two maps and updates which may consist of road nodes and road links (i.e. update point) either the first or second map depending on which one has older information);
select the range including a branch road or a junction road as the update point based on information on a branch point and a junction point in a route (Asakura [0076]-[0078] & Fig. 14, Examiner Note: Asakura further discloses the determination unit 140 performing the updating process on a branching road);
and receive update data of the update point (Asakura [0055]-[0065], [0069], & Fig. 9, Examiner Note: Asakura discloses determining the freshness of a road (e.g. road shape) if it is within a reference value (i.e. range which is a predetermined rule). Further, Asakura discloses a determination unit 140 (i.e. map update portion) which compares (i.e. manages) the two maps and updates which may consist of road nodes and road links (i.e. update point) either the first or second map depending on which one has older information).
Regarding Claim 2, Asakura, as shown above, discloses The map providing system according to claim 1, the processors further configured to:
Asakura further discloses acquire information of a route on a first map set by using the first map (Asakura [0067]-[0069] & Fig. 13, Examiner Note: Asakura discloses a navigation unit 120 (i.e. route information acquisition portion) which determines a travel route of the navigation map),
compare the route on the first map with a road on the second map, and when a road constituting the route on the first map does not exist in the second map, the processor is further configured to select the range including the road that does not exist as the update point (Asakura [0067]-[0069] & Fig. 13, Examiner Note: Asakura discloses comparing the maps based on road shape. The roads are compared via coordinate points (i.e. range). In the case of Fig. 13, when the maps are superimposed, and it is determined they do not sufficiently match, the map is updated to distinguish what parts of the road can and cannot be driven on autonomously).
Regarding Claim 3, Asakura, as shown above, discloses The map providing system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to compare identification information of a road constituting the route with identification information of a road existing in the second map, and when the identification information of the road constituting the route does not exist on the second map, the processor is further configured to select the range including the road that does not exist as the update point (Asakura [0067]-[0069] & Fig. 13, Examiner Note: Asakura discloses comparing the maps based on road shape (i.e. identification information). The roads are compared via coordinate points (i.e. range). In the case of Fig. 13, when the maps are superimposed, and it is determined they do not sufficiently match, the map is updated to distinguish what parts of the road can and cannot be driven on autonomously).
Regarding Claim 5, Asakura, as shown above, discloses The map providing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor further configured to compare a road on the first map with a road on the second map, and when at least a part of the road on the first map does not exist on the second map, the processor is further configured to select the range including the part of the road that does not exist as the update point (Asakura [0067]-[0069] & Fig. 13, Examiner Note: Asakura discloses comparing the maps based on road shape. The roads are compared via coordinate points (i.e. range). In the case of Fig. 13, when the maps are superimposed, and it is determined they do not sufficiently match, the map is updated to distinguish what parts of the road can and cannot be driven on autonomously).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MICHAEL T. DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666