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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)-(d).
A certified copy of Foreign Priority Application CN2022105409885 was received January 9, 2026.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on April 9, 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are currently canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-19 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) Rejections:
The outstanding 35 USC 112(a) rejections of claims 1-20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments deleting the limitation, “performing vehicle road coordination based on the updated first precision map and the updated second precision map”.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “(a) The method of the present application relies on point cloud data for map updating, and the inherent characteristics of such data render it unprocessable by the human mind. The claim explicitly specifies that the acquired ap update data includes point cloud data and crowdsourced collection data. Point cloud data is a massive three-dimensional spatial dataset generated by sensor systems such as LiDAR, containing millions or even billions of spatial coordinate points of geographic and environmental features. The inherent attributes of such data male it impossible for the human mind to process.” See Remarks in Response filed April 9, 2026.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Looking to the guidance of the MPEP, Section 2106.05 (d)(II) and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Applicant argues, “(b) [t]he step of updating two full geographically covered maps with different precision levels cannot be performed by human mental processes.”
“The claim clearly defines the two maps, where the first-precision map is a high-definition map, and the second-precision map is a standard map. It can be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art that both the high-definition map and the standard map are complete maps covering the entire geographic area, and their data characteristic and update requirements make it impossible for the human mind to complete the relevant operations.”
“For the high-definition map (first-precision map), which is expressed by lane group data consisting of lane demarcation lines and lane boundary lines, it is a fine-grained geospatial dataset for autonomous and intelligent transportation systems, containing road feature information with an extremely high level of refinement and geographic coverage.”
“For the standard map (second-precision map), which is expressed as a simple point-line model. Though its precision is lower than that of the high-definition map, it still requires complete geographic coordinate and topological data to achieve full regional coverage.”
“The human mental process is incapable of storing and comprehending full geographically covered map data. The human mind cannot retain the complete spatial information of an entire geographic area, and is even less able to process the fine-grained lane group data consisting of lane demarcation lines and boundary lines in the high-definition map. Nor can it perform a uniform update of the two maps with different precision levels.” See Remarks filed on April 9, 2026 on page 10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In evaluating claims under 35 USC 101, Examiners are bound by precedent. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, every time a driver drives a vehicle, they are gathering data regarding lane data, including lane demarcations and lane boundary lines, by following within the lane lines as they drive. This covers updating a first precision map. Further, regarding a second precision map, a driver drives along their intended pathway to their destination. Therefore, in following the current USPTO guidelines, the Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues, “(c) [t]he steps of generating and applying road topology data constitute technical operations unperformable by the human mind. … The aforementioned steps are not abstract logical reasoning but rather the concrete manipulation of geospatial data and model construction, which are completely unachievable by the human mind. The human mind can neither independently generate a structured road topology dataset from massive raw map update data, nor accurately apply sch a dataset to the uniform update of the two independent maps with different precision levels.” See Remarks filed on April 9, 2026 on page 11.
Applicant further argues that, under “Step2A (Prong 2). The claims at issue reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or improvement to other technology or technical field … The method of claim 1 enables the synchronous and integrated update of the high-definition map and the standard map, technically solving the technical problem of data inconsistency that is prone to occur when the two maps are updated separately. By generating an updated confidence of map features and road topology data from a single map update data source and synchronously applying them to the update of the two maps, the map update process is streamlined and the efficient update of map data is achieved. Therefore, the method of claim 1 reflects an improvement in map update technology.” See Remarks filed on April 9, 2026 on pages 11-12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the analogous facts that were considered in the Federal Circuit decision in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., et al., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed Cir. 2025), in which the Federal Circuit found that claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environments are not patent eligible. Similarly here, the data captured is lane boundary and demarcation information, intersection connections, lane associations, road segment networking, etc. As described above, the updating of this data is considered to be an abstract idea because it falls within the category of mental processes. Similar to the facts in Recentive, the use of this data with a generic machine-readable topological model is not a technological improvement and, therefore, is not enough to consider the claim eligible under 35 USC 101.
Therefore, the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained but are modified based on Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot. An updated search was performed in view of Applicant’s amendments and a new reference, Kurtz, et al. (Publication US 2022/0242440 A1) teaches the newly added limitation, “the first-precision map is a high-definition map expressed by lane group data consisting of lane demarcation lines and lane boundary lines, and the second-precision map is a standard map expressed by a simple point-line model” in paragraphs [0020], [0002], and [0018], as explained in detail below. Therefore, this reference in combination with the Cho, Akbarzadeh, and Zhang references, which each disclose uniformly updating map data discloses, “(i) updating uniformly a first-precision ma and a second-precision map based on the updated confidence of the map features, wherein precision of the first-precision map is higher than precision of the second-precision map, the first-precision map is a high-definition map expressed by lane group data consisting of lane demarcation lines and lane boundary lines, and the second-precision map is a standard map expressed by a simple point-line model; (ii) generating road topology data, based on the map update data; and updating the first-precision map and the second-precision map based on the road topology data.”
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. The outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections are maintained, however, they are modified in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the abstract idea of updating map data, and as drafted, are a method and system that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer elements. The claims are practically able to be performed in the mind. Claim 9 will be discussed and is representative of claims 1 and 17. For example, but for the “at least one processor”, “a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein, the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations“, and “acquiring map update data, wherein the map update data comprises point cloud data and crowdsourced collection data”, the limitations “generating an updated confidence of map features based on the map update data, wherein the confidence of map features represents precision of different layers of a map and/or timeliness reliability of the different layers of the map”, “updating uniformly a first-precision map and a second-precision map based on the updated confidence of the map features, wherein precision of the first-precision map is higher than precision of the second-precision map, the first-precision map is a high-definition map expressed by lane group data consisting of lane demarcation lines and lane boundary line, and the second-precision map is a standard map expressed by a simple point-line model”; “generating road topology data, based on the map update data”; and “updating the first-precision map and the second-precision map based on the road topology data” in the context of this claim, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the user performing each of these limitations either in the mind or with a pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite additional elements – “at least one processor”, “a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein, the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations“, and “acquiring map update data, wherein the map update data comprises point cloud data and crowdsourced collection data”.
The limitations of “at least one processor” and “a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein, the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations” are additional elements, recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The limitation of “acquiring map update data, wherein the map update data comprises point cloud data and crowdsourced collection data” is an additional element, recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, of the “at least one processor” and “a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein, the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations” do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.”
The limitations of “at least one processor” and “a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein, the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations” are additional elements that merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract ideas in a generic or general purpose map updating environment. They are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract idea limitations.
The limitation of “acquiring map update data, wherein the map update data comprises point cloud data and crowdsourced collection data” is an additional element, recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, well understood, routine, and conventional, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 2, 10, and 18 (claim 10 is discussed but is representative of claims 2 and 18), the limitation “the generating an updated confidence of map features based on the map update data, comprises: generating an updated precision confidence of the map features, based on a non-updated precision confidence of the map features, precision of the map update data and data changes in the map update data”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the limitation from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation “wherein the confidence comprises a precision confidence” in the context of this claim is an additional element that encompasses the user identifying that the confidence comprises a precision confidence, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, this additional element, even in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, well understood, routine, and conventional, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2, 10, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 3, 11, and 19 (claim 11 is discussed but is representative of claims 3 and 19), the limitation “generating an updated timeliness confidence of the map features, based on the map update data and the real-world changes”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the limitation from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The limitation “wherein the confidence comprises a timeliness confidence” and “acquiring real-world changes” in the context of this claim are additional elements that encompasses the user identifying that the confidence comprises a timeliness confidence and acquiring real-world changes, are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, this additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, well understood, routine, and conventional, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3, 11, and 19 are not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 5 and 13 (claim 13 is discussed but is representative of claim 5), the limitations “performing intersection segmentation based on the road topology data, and connecting adjacent lane groups in series to form a conversion chain; extracting geometric information of lane centerlines from the lane groups within the conversion chain, to generate a road fitting line of the second-precision map; associating an identification of a non-updated road segment of the second-precision map to the road fitting line; linking an intersection connection relationship of the road fitting line in combination with intersection information; and restoring information of at least part of map features of the second-precision map to the road fitting line”, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitations in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements preclude the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 5 and 13 recite an abstract idea.
Similarly for claims 6 and 14 (claim 14 is discussed but is representative of claim 6), the limitation “performing association transformation on different map features of the first-precision map and the second-precision map, based on the map update data”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements preclude the limitation from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 6 and 14 recite an abstract idea.
Similarly for claims 7 and 15 (claim 15 is discussed but is representative of claim 7), the limitation “the performing association transformation on different features of the first-precision map and the second-precision map, based on the map update data, comprises: generating a connection relationship between lanes based on directional arrows in the map update data”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements preclude the limitation from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recite an abstract idea.
The limitation “wherein the map features comprise lane-level topology-associated features ” in the context of this claim are additional elements that encompasses the user identifying that the map features comprise lane-level topology-associated features, are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, this additional element, even in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, well understood, routine, and conventional, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 7 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 8 and 16 (claim 16 is discussed but is representative of claim 8), the limitations “the performing association transformation on different features of the first-precision map and the second-precision map, based on the map update data, comprises: generating a first lane-level speed limit and a second lane-level speed limit of the first-precision map based on a lane-level speed limit standard, and generating a first road-level speed limit of the second-precision map based on the first lane-level speed limit and the second lane-level speed limit, wherein the first lane-level speed limit is an upper limit of the lane-level speed limit, the second lane-level speed limit is a lower limit of the lane-level speed limit, and the first road-level speed limit is an upper limit of a road-level speed limit; and/or generating traffic restrictions in combination with road network topology, and generating the lane-level marking style based on the traffic restrictions”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements preclude the limitation from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recite an abstract idea.
The limitation “wherein the map features comprise lane-level attribute features, and the lane-level attribute features comprise a lane-level speed limit and/or a lane-level marking style ” in the context of this claim are additional elements, are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, this additional element, even in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, well understood, routine, and conventional, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 8 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, Publication US 2019/0293445 A1, in view of, Akbarzadeh, et al., Publication US 2022/0341750 A1, Kurtz, et al., Publication US 2022/0242440 A1, and Zhang, Publication US 2024/0385009 A1, and (hereinafter referred to as “Cho”, “Akbarzadeh”, “Kurtz”, and “Zhang”, respectively.)
As per claims 1, 9, and 17 (claim 9 is being discussed and is representative of claims 1 and 17), Cho discloses an electronic device [see at least Cho Fig. 1], comprising:
at least one processor [see at least Cho Fig. 1 "control unit 130"]; and
a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor [see at least Cho [0035] "The first and second map DBs 110 and 120 may be formed as separate memories, or the storage region of one memory may be divided …"]; wherein,
the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor [see at least Cho [0037] "The control unit 130 may include a navigation module unit 131 and an update module unit 132, and operate the navigation module unit 131 and the update module unit 132 in a multitasking manner"], cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
acquiring map update data … [see at least Cho Fig. 2 "S102: Download differential data of map data to be updated from server"];
generating an updated … map features based on the map update data [see at least Cho [0038] …the update module unit 132 may …update a block corresponding to the differential data"; Fig. 4(b)]; and
updating uniformly a first-precision map and a second-precision map based on the updated … map features, wherein precision of the first-precision map is higher than precision of the second-precision map … [see at least Cho Fig. 2 "S103 Write differentially updated map data to second map DB; "S105 Copy differentially updated map data of second map DB, and synchronize first map DB" & para. [0050-0051].
Cho fails to disclose … wherein the map update data comprises point cloud data and crowdsourced collection data …; … confidence of map features … , wherein the confidence of map features represents precision of different layers of a map and/or timeliness reliability of the different layers of the map; updating uniformly a first-precision map and a second-precision map based on the updated confidence of the map features …; and performing vehicle-road coordination based on the updated first-precision map and the updated second-precision map. However, Akbarzadeh teaches these limitations:
… wherein the map update data comprises point cloud data and crowdsourced collection data … [see at least Akbarzadeh (point cloud) [0030] "During map 102 creation and/or updating (e.g., operation of a map creation and cross-validation 116 component of one or more server computer systems), the mapstreams 120 may be used to generate map data—and ultimately a fused HD map—that represents data generated over a plurality of drives. ... In an embodiment, the mapstreams 120 are generated (e.g., based at least in part on sensor data) by a mapstream processor 104 and provided to a mapstream and health aggregator 118. For example, each of the mapstreams 120 may be converted to a respective map (e.g., map 102), and any number of drive segments from any number of maps (or corresponding mapstreams 120) may be used to generate a fused HD map representation of the particular drive segment." [0171] "…The flash LIDAR device may use a 5 nanosecond class I (eye-safe) laser pulse per frame and may capture the reflected laser light in the form of 3D range point clouds ... "; (crowdsourced) [0006] "...updated perception data corresponding to the location at issue may be generated using one or more deployed vehicles—e.g., via crowdsourcing—to update the HD map at least at the location. Because the HD map may include various layer types, and an issue may be identified with respect to particular layer, the data required for collection may be selectively determined based on the layer type..."];
… confidence of map features … , wherein the confidence of map features represents precision of different layers of a map and/or timeliness reliability of the different layers of the map [see at least Akbarzadeh [0063] "...the mapstreams 320 may include localization health data to enable one or more server computer systems to validate the map 302. As such, in various embodiments, the ego-machine may generate confidence values (e.g., based at least in part on sensor data obtained from sensors of one or more modalities) and provide the confidence values to the one or more server computer systems."; [0060] "... detailed validation states can be tracked at the road segment scope or the <road segment.layer> scope or an even smaller scope (on the one or more server computer systems). In various embodiments, the system illustrated in example 200 supports features to limit driving based on operational design domains (ODDs)—such as features to determine when, where, and under what conditions an ego-machine can safely activate automated driving functions. In some embodiments, the system may block off certain areas of the map from the server side to prevent these areas from being drivable."; Abstract “…health of a high definition (HD) map may be monitored to determine whether inaccuracies exist in one or more layers of the HD map. For example, as one or more vehicles rely on the HD map to traverse portions of an environment, disagreements between … map layers of the HD map… may be identified and aggregated. Where errors are identified that indicate a drop in health of the HD map, updated data may be crowdsourced from one or more vehicles corresponding to a location of disagreement within the HD map, and the updated data may be used to update, verify, and validate the HD map.”];
updating uniformly a first-precision map and a second-precision map based on the updated confidence of the map features … [see at least Akbarzadeh [0030] "During map 102 creation and/or updating (e.g., operation of a map creation and cross-validation 116 component of one or more server computer systems), the mapstreams 120 may be used to generate map data—and ultimately a fused HD map—that represents data generated over a plurality of drives. ... In an embodiment, the mapstreams 120 are generated (e.g., based at least in part on sensor data) by a mapstream processor 104 and provided to a mapstream and health aggregator 118. For example, each of the mapstreams 120 may be converted to a respective map (e.g., map 102), and any number of drive segments from any number of maps (or corresponding mapstreams 120) may be used to generate a fused HD map representation of the particular drive segment."; [0035] "...in various embodiments, as the road structure, layout, conditions, surroundings, and/or other information change, health checking or monitoring may be performed to update the map data more quickly—e.g., in real-time or substantially real-time."]; and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho to incorporate the teaching of … wherein the map update data comprises point cloud data and crowdsourced collection data …; … confidence of map features … , wherein the confidence of map features represents precision of different layers of a map and/or timeliness reliability of the different layers of the map; and updating uniformly a first-precision map and a second-precision map based on the updated confidence of the map features … of Akbarzadeh with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved local operation of a vehicle using map data that includes map health data. [See at least Akbarzadeh [0038].]
The combination of Cho and Akbarzadeh fails to disclose … the first-precision map is a high-definition map expressed by lane group data consisting of lane demarcation lines and lane boundary lines, and the second-precision map is a standard map expressed by a simple point-line model. However, Kurtz teaches this limitation [see at least Kurtz [0020] "This document describes an automated method for associating an area selected within a low definition map to a high definition map. Such association of the selected area may allow an autonomous vehicle to identify lane segments within a high definition map that are required to support navigation and/or services (e.g., taxi services, rideshare trips, etc.) between two points within the selected area."; [0002] "An autonomous vehicle, therefore, takes a pre-existing and detailed map—a high definition map, such as a vector maps—of its environment (often including lane segment level details) and projects its sensor data on top of it so the vehicle can have enough information to make the safe navigation decision. However, each such high definition map can include hundreds of thousands of lane segments such that it is not practically feasible to use the detailed high definition map for delineating the geographical areas in which an autonomous vehicle is allowed to operate. Instead, low definition maps such as navigation maps, road-level maps, or the like that include limited information are used to demarcate or select such areas. There is a need to associate the area within which an autonomous vehicle can operate and that is selected using a low definition map to a high definition map."; [0018] "...a low definition map (e.g., a road-level map)... ."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in the combination of Cho and Akbarzadeh to incorporate the teaching of … the first-precision map is a high-definition map expressed by lane group data consisting of lane demarcation lines and lane boundary lines, and the second-precision map is a standard map expressed by a simple point-line model of Kurtz with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of increased use of autonomous driving features in more geographic areas. [See at least Kurtz [0001].]
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, and Kurtz fails to disclose … generating road topology data, based on the map update data; and updating the first-precision map and the second-precision map based on the road topology data. However, Zhang teaches this limitation:
… generating road topology data, based on the map update data [see at least Zhang [0046] "…A vehicle receives a second map from a map server, where the second map is obtained by updating a road network topology structure of a first map, and the road network topology structure includes at least one of …a topology relationship of a map element, and the vehicle updates the first map to the second map"]; and
updating the first-precision map and the second-precision map based on the road topology data [see at least Zhang [0047] "Based on the foregoing technical content, the vehicle may receive the second map obtained through updating the first map by the map server, and update the locally stored first map to the second map."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in the combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, and Kurtz to incorporate the teaching of … generating road topology data, based on the map update data; and updating the first-precision map and the second-precision map based on the road topology data of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of flexibly apply the map to various operation task scenarios and improve overall operational efficiency. [See at least Zhang [0008].]
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, in view of, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, and further in view of Liu, et al., Publication US 2023/0280165) (hereinafter referred to as “Liu”, respectively.)
As per claims 2, 10, and 18 (claim 10 is being discussed because it is representative of claims 2 and 18), the combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, 9, and 17.
Cho fails to disclose …wherein the confidence comprises a precision confidence … . However, Akbarzadeh teaches this limitation [see at least Akbarzadeh [0063] "...the mapstreams 320 may include localization health data to enable one or more server computer systems to validate the map 302. As such, in various embodiments, the ego-machine may generate confidence values (e.g., based at least in part on sensor data obtained from sensors of one or more modalities) and provide the confidence values to the one or more server computer systems."; [0060] "... detailed validation states can be tracked at the road segment scope or the <road segment.layer> scope or an even smaller scope (on the one or more server computer systems). In various embodiments, the system illustrated in example 200 supports features to limit driving based on operational design domains (ODDs)—such as features to determine when, where, and under what conditions an ego-machine can safely activate automated driving functions. In some embodiments, the system may block off certain areas of the map from the server side to prevent these areas from being drivable."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho to incorporate the teaching of …wherein the confidence comprises a precision confidence… of Akbarzadeh with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved local operation of a vehicle using map data that includes map health data. [See at least Akbarzadeh [0038].]
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang fails to disclose … the generating an updated confidence of map features based on the map update data, comprises: generating an updated precision confidence of the map features, based on a non-updated precision confidence of the map features, precision of the map update data and data changes in the map update data. However, Liu teaches these limitations:
… the generating an updated confidence of map features based on the map update data, comprises: generating an updated precision confidence of the map features, based on a non-updated precision confidence of the map features [see at least Liu [0104] "…the vehicle terminal 12 may sense the ambient environment through a sensor disposed on the vehicle terminal 12, and detect first information. The vehicle terminal 12 compares the detected first information with corresponding second information in the local map, and if the detected first information does not match the corresponding second information, sends the detected first information to the cloud server."],
precision of the map update data [see at least Liu [0104] "...The cloud server 11 may receive at least one piece of first information from the vehicle terminal 12; determine, based on received first information from at least one vehicle terminal in a time window, ... precision information and/or confidence information corresponding to the first change information, where the first change information is information about a difference between the first information and the second information, or information indicating that the first information is inconsistent with the second information..."]
and data changes in the map update data [see at least Liu [0104] "The cloud server 11 may receive at least one piece of first information from the vehicle terminal 12; determine, based on received first information from at least one vehicle terminal in a time window, first change information of the second information ..., where the first change information is information about a difference between the first information and the second information, or information indicating that the first information is inconsistent with the second information..."].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang to incorporate the teaching of … the generating an updated confidence of map features based on the map update data, comprises: generating an updated precision confidence of the map features, based on a non-updated precision confidence of the map features, precision of the map update data and data changes in the map update data … of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving reliability of map update data. [See at least Liu [0006].]
As per claims 3, 11, and 19 (claim 11 is being discussed because it is representative of claims 3 and 19), the combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, 9, and 17.
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang fails to disclose … wherein the confidence comprises a timeliness confidence; and the generating an updated confidence of map features based on the map update data, comprises: acquiring real-world changes; and generating an updated timeliness confidence of the map features, based on the map update data and the real-world changes. However, Liu teaches these limitations:
wherein the confidence comprises a timeliness confidence [see at least Liu [0104] "…in a time window…"];
and the generating an updated confidence of map features based on the map update data, comprises: acquiring real-world changes [see at least Liu [0104] "…the vehicle terminal 12 may sense the ambient environment through a sensor disposed on the vehicle terminal 12, and detect first information."];
and generating an updated timeliness confidence of the map features, based on the map update data and the real-world changes [see at least Liu [0104] "… The cloud server 11 may receive at least one piece of first information from the vehicle terminal 12; determine, based on received first information from at least one vehicle terminal in a time window, ...confidence information corresponding to the first change information, where the first change information is information about a difference between the first information and the second information, or information indicating that the first information is inconsistent with the second information..."].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang to incorporate the teaching of … wherein the confidence comprises a timeliness confidence; and the generating an updated confidence of map features based on the map update data, comprises: acquiring real-world changes; and generating an updated timeliness confidence of the map features, based on the map update data and the real-world changes … of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving reliability of map update data. [See at least Liu [0006].]
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, in view of, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, Zeng, et al., Publication US 2020/0226925, Leary, “Extracting Geometric Road Centerline and Lane Edges from Single-Scan LiDAR Intensity Using Optimally Filtered Extrema Features” published in 2018 IEEE Conference on Control Technology and Applications (CCTA) (2018, Page(s): 1133-1138), and Ding, et al., CN-114168700-A (hereinafter referred to as “Zeng”, “Leary”, and “Ding”.)
As per claims 5 and 13, (claim 13 is being discussed because it is representative of claim 5), the combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Cho discloses … generate…the second-precision map… [see at least Cho Fig. 2 "S103 Write differentially updated map data to second map DB; "S105 Copy differentially updated map data of second map DB, and synchronize first map DB"] and …restoring information of at least part of map features of the … map … [see at least Cho Fig. 2 "S103 Write differentially updated map data to second map DB; "S105 Copy differentially updated map data of second map DB, and synchronize first map DB"].
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang, fails to disclose … performing intersection segmentation based on the road topology data, and connecting adjacent lane groups in series to form a conversion chain … . However, Zeng teaches this limitation [see at least Zeng [0169] "The historical positioning point may be a positioning point in previous road matching, and a road network topology near the historical positioning point may be invoked from a cache…If the segment matched with the historical positioning point before the intersection scenario is entered is a segment 1, a road network topology in which the segment 1 is located includes segments 2 to 6 and segment crosspoints A and B."; (conversion) [0117] "...the coordinates of the positioning point may be substituted into the conversion formula of the geographic coordinates and the global number of the tile area, to obtain a global number corresponding to the coordinates of the positioning point..."].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang to incorporate the teaching of … performing intersection segmentation based on the road topology data, and connecting adjacent lane groups in series to form a conversion chain … of Zeng with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved positioning accuracy in a reconstructed road network topology. [See at least Zeng [0006].]
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, and Zeng fails to disclose … extracting geometric information of lane centerlines from the lane groups within the conversion chain, to generate a road fitting line of the … map … . However, Leary teaches this limitation [see at least Leary Abstract "…determining the geometric center and edges of a lane using intensity scans…for creating a baseline reference path for map building …"].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, and Zeng to incorporate the teaching of … extracting geometric information of lane centerlines from the lane groups within the conversion chain, to generate a road fitting line of the … map … of Leary with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of creating a baseline reference path for map building. [See at least Leary Abstract.]
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, Zeng, and Leary fails to disclose … associating an identification of a non-updated road segment of the … map to the … line … and … linking an intersection connection relationship of the road fitting line in combination with intersection information … . However, Ding teaches these limitations:
… associating an identification of a non-updated road segment of the … map to the … line … [see at least Ding page 6 "…the topological structures associated in the remaining road, intersection and lane vectors are retained, and other redundant topological structures are eliminated."]
… linking an intersection connection relationship of the road fitting line in combination with intersection information … [see at least Ding page 11 "Roads associated with intersections intersecting with polygonal edges belong to the two divided road networks."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, Zeng, and Leary to incorporate the teaching of … associating an identification of a non-updated road segment of the … map to the … line … and … linking an intersection connection relationship of the road fitting line in combination with intersection information … of Ding with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved merging and updating road network data. [See at least Ding page 1.]
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, in view of, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, and Zhou, et al., Publication US 2023/0104225) (hereinafter referred to as “Zhou”.)
As per claims 6 and 14, (claim 14 is being discussed because it is representative of claim 6), the combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Cho discloses …wherein the method further comprises: … the first-precision map and the second-precision map… [see at least Cho Fig. 2 "S103 Write differentially updated map data to second map DB; "S105 Copy differentially updated map data of second map DB, and synchronize first map DB"].
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang, fails to disclose … performing association transformation on different map features of the … map, based on the map update data. However, Zhou teaches this limitation [see at least Zhou [0096] "...successively for each road data to be fused, the first road element association relationship between the first sub road data and the benchmark road data is established; the second road element association relationship between the second sub road data and the benchmark road data is established according to the first road element association relationship; the first transformation relationship from the first sub road data to the benchmark road data is determined according to the first road element association relationship between the first sub road data and the benchmark road data; the first sub road data is transformed according to the first transformation relationship, to obtain the transformed first sub road data; the second transformation relationship from the second sub road data to the benchmark road data is determined according to the second road element association relationship between the second sub road data and the benchmark road data; the second sub road data is transformed according to the second transformation relationship, to obtain the transformed second sub road data..."].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang to incorporate the teaching of … wherein the method further comprises: … the first-precision map and the second-precision map … of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved generation efficiency of road data. [See at least Zhou [0029].]
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, in view of, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, Zhou, and Tsukamoto, Publication US 2022/0219700) (hereinafter referred to as “Tsukamoto”.)
As per claims 7 and 15, (claim 15 is being discussed because it is representative of claim 7), the combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, and Zhou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 6 and 14.
Cho discloses … the first-precision map and the second-precision map… [see at least Cho Fig. 2 "S103 Write differentially updated map data to second map DB; "S105 Copy differentially updated map data of second map DB, and synchronize first map DB"]
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang, fails to disclose …wherein the map features comprise lane-level topology-associated features; and the performing association transformation on different features of … the … map, based on the map update data. However, Zhou teaches this limitation [see at least Zhou [0096] "...successively for each road data to be fused, the first road element association relationship between the first sub road data and the benchmark road data is established; the second road element association relationship between the second sub road data and the benchmark road data is established according to the first road element association relationship; the first transformation relationship from the first sub road data to the benchmark road data is determined according to the first road element association relationship between the first sub road data and the benchmark road data; the first sub road data is transformed according to the first transformation relationship, to obtain the transformed first sub road data; the second transformation relationship from the second sub road data to the benchmark road data is determined according to the second road element association relationship between the second sub road data and the benchmark road data; the second sub road data is transformed according to the second transformation relationship, to obtain the transformed second sub road data..."].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang to incorporate the teaching of …wherein the map features comprise lane-level topology-associated features; and the performing association transformation on different features of … the … map, based on the map update data … of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved generation efficiency of road data. [See at least Zhou [0029].]
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, and Zhou fails to disclose … generating a connection relationship between lanes based on directional arrows in the map update data. However, Tsukamoto teaches this limitation [see at least Tsukamoto [0006] "The processor of the apparatus ...detects, as the road marking, an arrow indicating a direction in which vehicles are allowed to proceed; and the processor preferably generates the lane network so as to connect, for each of the roads, an entry lane of the road only to an exit lane of another of the roads lying in the direction indicated by the arrow marked on the entry lane of the road."].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, and Zhou to incorporate the teaching of … generating a connection relationship between lanes based on directional arrows in the map update data of Tsukamoto with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved map generation that can automatically extract the connection relationship between lanes on which vehicles are allowed to travel in roads connected to an intersection. [See at least Tsukamoto [0004].]
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, in view of, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, Zhou, and Lee, Publication US 2023/0043586) (hereinafter referred to as “Lee”).
As per claims 8 and 16, (claim 16 is being discussed because it is representative of claim 8), the combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, and Zhou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 6 and 14.
Cho discloses …the first-precision map and the second-precision map … [see at least Cho Fig. 2 "S103 Write differentially updated map data to second map DB; "S105 Copy differentially updated map data of second map DB, and synchronize first map DB"].
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, and Kurtz fails to disclose … generating traffic restrictions in combination with road network topology … . However, Zhang teaches this limitation [see at least Zhang [0046] "…A vehicle receives a second map from a map server, where the second map is obtained by updating a road network topology structure of a first map, and the road network topology structure includes at least one of …a topology relationship of a map element, and the vehicle updates the first map to the second map"].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho, Akbarzadeh, and Kurtz to incorporate the teaching of … generating traffic restrictions in combination with road network topology … of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of flexibly applying the map to various operation task scenarios and improve overall operational efficiency. [See at least Zhang [0008].]
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang fails to disclose … the performing association transformation on different features of the … map, based on the map update data … . However, Zhou teaches this limitation [see at least Zhou (performing association transformation on different map features)[0096] "...successively for each road data to be fused, the first road element association relationship between the first sub road data and the benchmark road data is established; the second road element association relationship between the second sub road data and the benchmark road data is established according to the first road element association relationship; the first transformation relationship from the first sub road data to the benchmark road data is determined according to the first road element association relationship between the first sub road data and the benchmark road data; the first sub road data is transformed according to the first transformation relationship, to obtain the transformed first sub road data; the second transformation relationship from the second sub road data to the benchmark road data is determined according to the second road element association relationship between the second sub road data and the benchmark road data; the second sub road data is transformed according to the second transformation relationship, to obtain the transformed second sub road data..."].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, and Zhang, to incorporate the teaching of … the performing association transformation on different features of the … map, based on the map update data … of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved generation efficiency of road data. [See at least Zhou [0029].]
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, and Zhou fails to disclose … generating a first lane-level speed limit and a second lane-level speed limit of the first-precision map based on a lane-level speed limit standard, and generating a first road-level speed limit of the second-precision map based on the first lane-level speed limit and the second lane-level speed limit, wherein the first lane-level speed limit is an upper limit of the lane-level speed limit, the second lane-level speed limit is a lower limit of the lane-level speed limit, and the first road-level speed limit is an upper limit of a road-level speed limit … and … generating the lane-level marking style based on the traffic restrictions. However, Lee discloses these limitations:
… generating a first lane-level speed limit and a second lane-level speed limit of the first-precision map based on a lane-level speed limit standard, and generating a first road-level speed limit of the second-precision map based on the first lane-level speed limit and the second lane-level speed limit, wherein the first lane-level speed limit is an upper limit of the lane-level speed limit, the second lane-level speed limit is a lower limit of the lane-level speed limit, and the first road-level speed limit is an upper limit of a road-level speed limit … [see at least Lee [0062] "…the controller 120 may calculate the minimum speed at which the automatic lane change function for each road is operable based on the maximum speed limit for each road included in the map information stored…"]; and
… generating the lane-level marking style based on the traffic restrictions … [see at least Lee … generating the lane-level marking style based on the traffic restrictions.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Cho, Akbarzadeh, Kurtz, Zhang, and Zhou to incorporate the teaching of … generating a first lane-level speed limit and a second lane-level speed limit of the first-precision map based on a lane-level speed limit standard, and generating a first road-level speed limit of the second-precision map based on the first lane-level speed limit and the second lane-level speed limit, wherein the first lane-level speed limit is an upper limit of the lane-level speed limit, the second lane-level speed limit is a lower limit of the lane-level speed limit, and the first road-level speed limit is an upper limit of a road-level speed limit … and … generating the lane-level marking style based on the traffic restrictions … of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved reliance on the map data for particular map data applications. [See at least Lee [0010].]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
