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 rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 29 October 2025. Claims 19-23, 25-27, 29 and 30 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claims 1-18, 24 and 28 are canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 of 29 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 October 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Arguments and amendments regarding objection to claims 23 and 27 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Objection to claims 23 and 27 set forth in office action of 30 July 2025 are withdrawn. Examiner has been fully considered arguments and amendment for first 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claim 19 is persuasive and has been withdrawn. Amendment and arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claims 19, 20, 24, 29, and 30 is not persuasive and is sustained. Amendment and arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claims 23 and 27 and 29 and 30 is persuasive and is withdrawn. Amendment and arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 19-30 is not persuasive and is sustained. Amendments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection to claims 19-30 have been withdrawn and are moot in view of new obviousness rejection necessitated by amendments. All rejections regarding canceled claims 24 and 28 are moot and withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s cited paragraphs do not clarify the metes and bounds of "policy information" for example, applicant cites paragraph 18: "the server may calculate a positioning cycle for positioning data at intervals of up to 20 cm at the regulation speed of the driving section" but the quoted text does not mention any such policy information. Paragraph 19 discloses "server may calculate the number of positioning vehicles for a speed section in which the positioning cycle exceeds a predetermined limit" but that quoted text does not mention any policy information. Paragraph 16 discloses: "the vehicle electronic device may compare lanes and presence or absence of curbs or obstacles in the driving section with the high-definition map data through the plurality of sensors and transmit a direction of difference and an amount of difference to the server" but the quoted text does not mention any policy information. Lastly, paragraph 21 does not define what policy information is and only discusses the condition for the server to "transmit new positioning policy information" but the metes and bounds of "policy information" is still unclear. The only paragraph cited by the applicant that gestures to the definition of positioning policy information could be is paragraph 20: "the server may calculate positioning policy information to perform positioning by providing different positioning starting points to the electronic device of each positioning vehicle and transmit the calculated positioning policy information to a vehicle scheduled to enter that section", the quoted text defines policy information as "positioning start points". Additionally, examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of "positioning policy information" and if "policy information" is different or the same as "positioning policy information".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 19, 20, 24, 29, and 30 is indefinite because Examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of recited “policy information”. It is unclear if “policy information” means: (i) vehicle control command, (ii) GPS coordinates, (iii) speed limit or traffic rule, (iv) road access availability, (v) a level of congestion traffic on the road. Examiner cannot find any detail to clarify the meaning of “policy information” in the specification or the claims.
Claims 20-23, 25-27 and 29-30 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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 19-23, 25-27 and 29-30 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 – YES
Claim 19 is directed to a system. Therefore, claim 19 is 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 19 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 19 recites:
A system for updating high-definition maps for autonomous driving, the system comprising:
an autonomous vehicle configured to:
receive a high-definition map data for a driving section and positioning policy information for the driving section, wherein the positioning policy information for the driving section is optionally provided;
based on an absence of the positioning policy information for the driving section,
obtain positioning data of the driving section according to a basic interval during autonomous driving,
wherein an inconsistency result is generated when the high-definition map data is different from the obtained positioning data of the driving section, and
wherein the positioning data includes data corresponding to a condition of the driving section;
based on receiving the positioning policy information for the driving section, stop autonomous driving and obtain positioning data of the driving section according to a predetermined interval and
transmit, according to the received positioning policy information for the driving section, one or more of the inconsistency result of the driving section or positioning data obtained by performing positioning;
and a server configured to:
provide the high-definition map data to the autonomous vehicle;
generate the positioning policy information for the driving section based on receiving the inconsistency result of the driving section from the autonomous vehicle;
provide the generated positioning policy information for the driving section to a selected one or more of autonomous vehicles scheduled to enter the driving section;
receive positioning data obtained by the autonomous vehicle according to the positioning policy information for the driving section; and
update the high-definition map data with the received positioning data from the selected one or more of autonomous vehicles.
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, provide an inconsistency result indicating an existence of a difference between the high-definition map data of the driving section and positioning data obtained during autonomous driving is forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper pf a person comparing a map to its surroundings and determining if it is different than the map.
Examiner notes that 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). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation (driver behavior).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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”):
Claim 19 recites:
A system for updating high-definition maps for autonomous driving, the system comprising:
an autonomous vehicle configured to:
receive a high-definition map data for a driving section and positioning policy information for the driving section, wherein the positioning policy information for the driving section is optionally provided;
based on an absence of the positioning policy information for the driving section,
obtain positioning data of the driving section according to a basic interval during autonomous driving,
wherein an inconsistency result is generated when the high-definition map data is different from the obtained positioning data of the driving section, and
wherein the positioning data includes data corresponding to a condition of the driving section;
based on receiving the positioning policy information for the driving section, stop autonomous driving and obtain positioning data of the driving section according to a predetermined interval and
transmit, according to the received positioning policy information for the driving section, one or more of the inconsistency result of the driving section or positioning data obtained by performing positioning;
and a server configured to:
provide the high-definition map data to the autonomous vehicle;
generate the positioning policy information for the driving section based on receiving the inconsistency result of the driving section from the autonomous vehicle;
provide the generated positioning policy information for the driving section to a selected one or more of autonomous vehicles scheduled to enter the driving section;
receive positioning data obtained by the autonomous vehicle according to the positioning policy information for the driving section; and
update the high-definition map data with the received positioning data from the selected one or more of autonomous vehicles.
Regarding the additional limitations of receive, obtain, provide, and update the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform data gathering, displaying, sending and receiving steps. In particular, the receiving and communicating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and performing communications for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 impost any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 receive, obtain, provide, and update amounts to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform data gathering, displaying, sending and receiving steps. In particular, the receiving and communicating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and performing communications for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 20-23, 25-27 and 29-30, do not recite any further limitations that causes the claims to be patent eligible. 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 20-23, 25-27 and 29-30 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 19.
Therefore, claims 19-23, 25-27 and 29-30 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.
Claim 19-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adare; Andrew et al. (US 20200296558 A1) in view of LAWRENSON; Matthew John et al. (US 20180356236 A1) and LEE; Jong Ho et al. (US 20210078593 A1)
Regarding Claim 19, Adare teaches, a system for updating high-definition maps for autonomous driving (see at least, ¶35, Adare), the system comprising: an autonomous vehicle configured to: receive a high-definition map data for a driving section and positioning policy information for the driving section (receiving vehicle apparatus may use the information/data for a driving section to update a digital map locally stored and positioning policy information adjusting one more driving parameters of the autonomous vehicle, see at least, ¶31, Adare), wherein the positioning policy information for the driving section is optionally provided (receiving vehicle apparatus may use the information for adjusting one more driving parameters of the autonomous vehicle but it is not required therefore the positioning policy information is optional, see at least, ¶31, Adare); based on an absence of the positioning policy information for the driving section, obtain positioning data of the driving section according to a basic interval during autonomous driving (vehicle apparatus 20 capture sensor information/data as the vehicle 5 autonomously traverses a driving section and does not transmit inconsistency notifications in the absence of V2V criteria, see at least, ¶31-32 and 36-38, Adare), wherein an inconsistency result is generated when the high-definition map data is different from the obtained positioning data of the driving section (vehicle apparatus 20 analyzes the sensor information/data and identify/detect inconsistencies between the analysis of the sensor information and the map information stored in memory, see at least, ¶38, Adare), and wherein the positioning data includes data corresponding to a condition of the driving section (current condition of a road network is represented by sensor information/data captured by a vehicle apparatus 20, see at least, ¶44, Adare); based on receiving the positioning policy information for the driving section, stop autonomous driving and obtain positioning data of the driving section according to a predetermined interval and transmit, according to the received positioning policy information for the driving section, one or more of the inconsistency result of the driving section or positioning data obtained by performing positioning (based on if the detected inconsistency satisfies one or more V2V criteria, the vehicle generates a notification message that includes the inconsistency result of the driving section or trajectory information obtained by performing positioning, see at least, ¶31-32, Adare); and a server configured to: provide the high-definition map data to the autonomous vehicle; generate the positioning policy information for the driving section based on receiving the inconsistency result of the driving section from the autonomous vehicle; provide the generated positioning policy information for the driving section to a selected one or more of autonomous vehicles scheduled to enter the driving section (network apparatus 10 may be a server, and may transmit notification messages that include HD maplet data comprising inconsistency result to autonomous vehicles which use for autonomous navigation and positioning, see at least, ¶11, 32 -36 and 91, Adare); receive positioning data obtained by the autonomous vehicle according to the positioning policy information for the driving section; and update the high-definition map data with the received positioning data from the selected one or more of autonomous vehicles (network apparatus 10 receive notification/update messages comprising positioning data from the autonomous vehicles meeting V2V criteria (policy information) and update the HD map with the received positioning data, see at least, ¶31-37, Adare).
Adare does not explicitly teach, based on an absence of the positioning policy information for the driving section, obtain positioning data of the driving section according to a basic interval and based on receiving the positioning policy information for the driving section, stop autonomous driving and obtain positioning data of the driving section according to a predetermined interval.
Lawrenson, directed to A system and method for updating map data for updating map data for an autonomous vehicle, teaches, based on an absence of the positioning policy information for the driving section, obtain positioning data of the driving section according to a basic interval and based on receiving the positioning policy information for the driving section, obtain positioning data of the driving section according to a predetermined interval (Fig.5 depicts AV Sensors Collect Sensor Data 501 at predetermined intervals (basic interval) and once a potential change is identified (receiving positioning policy information), the AV sensors may continuously (predetermined interval) collect sensor data until the potential change is no longer detected (absence of positioning policy information), see at least, ¶77, Lawrenson).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adare to incorporate the teachings of Lawrenson which teaches based on an absence of the positioning policy information for the driving section, obtain positioning data of the driving section according to a basic interval and based on receiving the positioning policy information for the driving section, obtain positioning data of the driving section according to a predetermined interval since they are both related updating maps for autonomous vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Lawrenson would increase accuracy the AV map system (see at least ¶174-176, Lawrenson).
Lee, directed to computer systems and techniques for operating an autonomous vehicle (AV) based on the availability of navigation information, teaches based on receiving the positioning policy information for the driving section, stop autonomous driving (Fig. 14 Block 1410 depicts in accordance with the determination that navigational information is not available for the determined location (receiving policy information), the vehicle will exit autonomous mode, see at least, ¶ 122, Fig. 14, Lee)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adare and Lawrenson to incorporate the teachings of Lee which teaches based on receiving the positioning policy information for the driving section, stop autonomous driving since they are both related to navigating autonomous vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Lee would increase the safety of the vehicle when the navigation system is not in a reliable state (see at least ¶ 37, Lee).
Regarding Claim 20, Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee teach, the system according to claim 19, wherein, in the absence of the positioning policy information for the driving section, the autonomous vehicle is configured to compare the high-definition map data with the obtained positioning data of a current driving section based at least in part on the obtained positioning data is different from the high- definition map data of the driving section (Based on the absence of V2V criteria, see at least ¶31-32, vehicle apparatus 20 analyzes the sensor information/data and identify/detect inconsistencies between the analysis of the sensor information and the high definition map information stored in memory, see at least, ¶38, and wherein the positioning data includes data corresponding to a condition of the driving section, see at least, ¶44, Adare)
Regarding Claim 21, Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee teaches, the system according to claim 20,
Lee, directed to computer systems and techniques for operating an autonomous vehicle (AV) based on the availability of navigation information teaches, wherein, based at least in part on a difference between the obtained positioning data and the high-definition map data is out of an error range, the autonomous vehicle is configured to stop autonomous driving (see at least, ¶122, Fig. 14, Lee).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee to further incorporate the teachings of Lee which teaches wherein, based at least in part on a difference between the obtained positioning data and the high-definition map data is out of an error range, the autonomous vehicle is configured to stop autonomous driving since they are both related to updating and utilizing maps for vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Lee would increase safety and reliability of the overall system by also stopping autonomous driving when the map confidence is unfit for safe autonomous driving.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adare; Andrew et al. (US 20200296558 A1) in view of LAWRENSON; Matthew John et al. (US 20180356236 A1) and LEE; Jong Ho et al. (US 20210078593 A1) as applied to claims 19-21 and further in view of KITAHARA; GENKI et al. (US 20210199463 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee teaches, the system according to claim 20,
Kitahara, directed to a map generation system for autonomously driving a vehicle teaches, wherein, based at least in part on the server receives the inconsistency result, the server determines a reliability of the received inconsistency result from the autonomous vehicle (see at least, ¶34, Kitahara).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee to further incorporate the teachings of Kitahara which teaches, wherein, based at least in part on the server receives the inconsistency result, the server determines a reliability of the received inconsistency result from the autonomous vehicle since they are both related updating maps for autonomous vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Kitahara would increase the accuracy of the high definition map.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adare; Andrew et al. (US 20200296558 A1) in view of LAWRENSON; Matthew John et al. (US 20180356236 A1), LEE; Jong Ho et al. (US 20210078593 A1) and KITAHARA; GENKI et al. (US 20210199463 A1) as applied to claim 22 and further in view of Lasseson; Kristian (US 20110102637 A1) and PARK; Kang Won et al. (US 20200174470 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Adare in view of Lawrenson, Lee and Kitahara teaches, the system according to claim 22, wherein, based at least in part on the server receives the inconsistency result.
Adare in view of Lawrenson, Lee and Kitahara does not explicitly teach the server is further configured to: calculate a corrected positioning interval for a regulation speed of the driving section period; and calculate a number of vehicles needed to perform positioning based on the corrected positioning interval.
Lasseson, directed to, capturing videos of trips teaches, the server is further configured to: calculate a corrected positioning interval for a regulation speed of the driving section period (see at least, ¶57, Lasseson);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adare in view of Lawrenson, Lee and Kitahara to further incorporate the teachings of Lasseson which teaches, the server is further configured to: calculate a corrected positioning interval for a regulation speed of the driving section period since they are both related to recording devices for vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Lasseson would retain an improved record of the trip, see at least ¶32, Lasseson.
Park, directed to directed to a system and a method for supporting driving of an autonomous vehicle further teaches, calculate a number of vehicles needed to perform positioning based on the corrected positioning interval (see at least, ¶86, Fig.3, Park).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adare in view of Lawrenson, Lee Kitahara and Lasseson to incorporate the teachings of Park which teaches calculate a number of vehicles needed to perform positioning based on the corrected positioning interval since they are both related updating and utilizing maps for vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Park would increase safety and reliability of the overall system by ensuring that the vehicles in the driving section being controlled by the server are properly accounted for.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adare; Andrew et al. (US 20200296558 A1) in view of LAWRENSON; Matthew John et al. (US 20180356236 A1) and LEE; Jong Ho et al. (US 20210078593 A1) as applied to claims 19-21 and further in view of VAN LAETHEM; Jean-Marc et al. (US 20160210854 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee teaches, the system according to claim 19.
Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the result of an analysis includes a speed of the autonomous vehicle at a-time of performing positioning and an analyzed difference.
Van Laethem, directed to updating a database of authorized speed limits on all sections of a road network teaches, wherein the result of an analysis includes a speed of the autonomous vehicle at a-time of performing positioning and an analyzed difference (see at least, ¶18, Van Laethem).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Van Laethem which teaches wherein the result of an analysis includes a speed of the autonomous vehicle at a-time of performing positioning and an analyzed difference since they are both related updating and utilizing maps for vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Van Laethem would reduce the cost of monitoring and updating speed limits of all roads on a map by updating them automatically.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adare; Andrew et al. (US 20200296558 A1) in view of LAWRENSON; Matthew John et al. (US 20180356236 A1), LEE; Jong Ho et al. (US 20210078593 A1) and VAN LAETHEM; Jean-Marc et al. (US 20160210854 A1) as applied to claim 25 and further in view of TOHRIYAMA; Kyoichi et al. (US 20200225044 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, Adare in view of Lawrenson, Lee and Van Laethem teaches, the system according to claim 25.
Adare in view of Lawrenson, Lee and Van Laethem does not explicitly teach, wherein the analyzed difference includes at least one of positioning of lanes, curbs, and presence or absence of obstacles in a current driving section and an amount of the analyzed difference.
Tohriyama, directed to a map information provision system wherein the analyzed difference includes at least one of positioning of lanes, curbs, and presence or absence of obstacles in a current driving section and an amount of the analyzed difference (see at least, ¶23 and 65, Tohriyama).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adare in view of Lawrenson, Lee and Van Laethem to incorporate the teachings of Tohriyama which wherein the analyzed difference includes at least one of positioning of lanes, curbs, and presence or absence of obstacles in a current driving section and an amount of the analyzed difference since they are both related updating and utilizing maps for vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Tohriyama would increase safety and reliability of the overall system by improving the accuracy and positioning of landmarks in the map in the case the road has shifted or an obstacle has moved.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adare; Andrew et al. (US 20200296558 A1) in view of LAWRENSON; Matthew John et al. (US 20180356236 A1) and LEE; Jong Ho et al. (US 20210078593 A1) as applied to claims 19-21 and further in view of BRAUNSTEIN; Daniel et al. (US 20170008521 A1) and Chun; Semin (US 20210354557 A1).
Regarding Claim 27, Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee teaches the system according to claim 19,
Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee does not explicitly wherein the server is configured to calculate a corrected positioning interval to perform positioning within a margin of error at a regulation speed of the driving section.
Braunstein, directed to directed to systems and methods for constructing, using, and updating the sparse map for autonomous vehicle navigation teaches, wherein the server is configured to calculate a corrected positioning interval to perform positioning within a margin of error (see at least, ¶349, Fig. 5E, Braunstein).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Braunstein which teaches wherein the server is configured to calculate a corrected positioning interval to perform positioning within a margin of error since they are both related updating and utilizing maps for vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Braunstein would increase safety and reliability of the overall system by ensuring the path provided by the positioning cycle contains a low margin of error which ensures a high granularity of path information.
Chun, directed to directed to an apparatus for assisting driving of a host vehicle teaches, within a margin of error at the regulation speed of the driving section (see at least, ¶78, 91, Fig. 4, ¶127, Chun).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee and Braunstein to incorporate the teachings of Chun with which teaches within a margin of error at the regulation speed of the driving section since they are both related updating and utilizing maps for vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Chun would increase safety and reliability of the overall system by instruction vehicles to accelerate or decelerate in accordance with the speed limits of the driving section.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adare; Andrew et al. (US 20200296558 A1) in view of LAWRENSON; Matthew John et al. (US 20180356236 A1) and LEE; Jong Ho et al. (US 20210078593 A1) as applied to claims 19-21 and further in view of Chun; Semin (US 20210354557 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee teaches, the system according to claim 19,
Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee does not explicitly teach, wherein the server is configured to: determine whether the autonomous vehicle's speed at a-time of positioning is consistent with the autonomous vehicle's speed according to the positioning policy information; based at least in part on the autonomous vehicle's speed at the time of positioning is consistent with a speed of the autonomous vehicle according to the positioning policy information, update the high-definition map data with the received positioning data; and provide the updated high-definition map data to the autonomous vehicle scheduled to enter the driving section.
Chun, directed to directed to an apparatus for assisting driving of a host vehicle teaches, determine whether the autonomous vehicle's speed at a-time of positioning is consistent with the autonomous vehicle's speed according to the positioning policy information; based at least in part on the autonomous vehicle's speed at the time of positioning is consistent with a speed of the autonomous vehicle according to the positioning policy information, update the high-definition map data with the received positioning data; and provide the updated high-definition map data to the autonomous vehicle scheduled to enter the driving section (see at least, ¶78, 91, Fig. 4, ¶127, Chun).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Chun with which teaches determine whether the autonomous vehicle's speed at a-time of positioning is consistent with the autonomous vehicle's speed according to the positioning policy information; based at least in part on the autonomous vehicle's speed at the time of positioning is consistent with a speed of the autonomous vehicle according to the positioning policy information, update the high-definition map data with the received positioning data; and provide the updated high-definition map data to the autonomous vehicle scheduled to enter the driving section since they are both related updating and utilizing maps for vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Chun would increase safety and reliability of the overall system by instruction vehicles to accelerate or decelerate in accordance with the speed limits of the driving section.
Regarding Claim 30, Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee teaches, the system according to claim 19, wherein, based at least in part on the autonomous vehicle's speed at a time of positioning is not consistent with the autonomous vehicle's speed according to the positioning policy information, the server is configured to: store the positioning data received from the autonomous vehicle; determine supplementary positioning policy information for obtaining additional positioning data at the driving section; and transmit the supplementary positioning policy information to the selected one or more of autonomous vehicles scheduled to enter the driving section.
Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee does not explicitly teach wherein, based at least in part on the autonomous vehicle's speed at a time of positioning is not consistent with the autonomous vehicle's speed according to the positioning policy information, the server is configured to: store the positioning data received from the autonomous vehicle; determine supplementary positioning policy information for obtaining additional positioning data at the driving section; and transmit the supplementary positioning policy information to the selected one or more of autonomous vehicles scheduled to enter the driving section.
Chun, directed to directed to an apparatus for assisting driving of a host vehicle teaches, wherein, based at least in part on the autonomous vehicle's speed at a time of positioning is not consistent with the autonomous vehicle's speed according to the positioning policy information, the server is configured to: store the positioning data received from the autonomous vehicle; determine supplementary positioning policy information for obtaining additional positioning data at the driving section; and transmit the supplementary positioning policy information to the selected one or more of autonomous vehicles scheduled to enter the driving section (see at least, ¶78, 91, Fig. 4, ¶127, Chun).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adare in view of Lawrenson and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Chun with which teaches wherein, based at least in part on the autonomous vehicle's speed at a time of positioning is not consistent with the autonomous vehicle's speed according to the positioning policy information, the server is configured to: store the positioning data received from the autonomous vehicle; determine supplementary positioning policy information for obtaining additional positioning data at the driving section; and transmit the supplementary positioning policy information to the selected one or more of autonomous vehicles scheduled to enter the driving section since they are both related updating and utilizing maps for vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Chun would increase safety and reliability of the overall system by instruction vehicles to accelerate or decelerate in accordance with the speed limits of the driving section.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664