DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 9, 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Attempts by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application from People’s Republic of China CN 202210540988.5, to which priority is claimed has FAILED on 10/17/2023, 5/6/2025, and 7/16/2025.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed in the RCE on October 9, 2025.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
The outstanding 35 USC 112(a) rejections are maintained but are modified in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claim language. It is acknowledged that Applicant has deleted the term “control” from the claim language, however, the remaining limitation, “performing vehicle-road coordination based on the updated first-precision map and the updated second-precision map” is also new matter since there is no disclosure in the original specification to support this limitation.
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s amendments and arguments submitted on October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “[i]t is well-known that the ‘vehicle-road coordination’ encompasses the interaction between vehicles and road infrastructure to enable intelligent transportation functions. The claimed method performs the vehicle-road coordination based on the updated maps, which integrates the method into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are eligible.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not clear what vehicle-road coordination involves. There is no disclosure in the specification to define what actions or steps are necessary to fulfill the requirements of vehicle-road coordination. Therefore, it is not clear that the vehicle-road coordination integrates the method into a practical application.
The outstanding 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained but is slightly modified based on Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s amendments and arguments submitted on October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, “Cho fails to disclose the above-listed features (i)-(iii) of claim 1, which has been correctly acknowledged by the Office.” The Examiner respectfully, disagrees with this statement.
The Cho reference is used for its disclosure of:
“generating an updated … map features based on the map update data”
“updating uniformly a first-precision map and a second precision map based on the updated … map features”
The Akbarzadeh reference is used for its disclosure of:
“… 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”
“… confidence of the map features…”
“performing vehicle-road coordination based on the updated first-precision map and the updated second-precision map”
Applicant also argues that, “Akbarzadeh discloses in paragraph [0063] generating confidence values. However, Akbarzadeh neither indicates that these confidence values are associated with map features, nor discloses that these confidence values represent the precision of different layers of a map and/or timeliness reliability of the different layers of the map.” See page 11, Response dated 10/09/2025.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Abstract of the Akbarzadeh reference discloses, “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.” Further, paragraph [0063] explicitly states, “…certain data may be required to be valid in the map. … a signal is generated to indicate if mapstreams 320 are uploaded. … the system may create maps from mapstreams 320 and validate them … the map streams 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.” The Examiner notes that the sensor data obtained from sensor would include map features. This paragraph explicitly discloses that confidence values are generated based at least in part on sensor data, including map features, obtained from the sensors and provides the confidence values to one or more computer systems. Further, paragraph [0077] in Akbarzadeh discloses, “[i]n some embodiments related to payload confidence, the system and/or module … may be able to provide confidence values for individual element of a map.” Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that “Akbarzadeh neither indicates that these confidence values are associated with map features, nor discloses that these confidence values represent the precision of different layers of a map and/or timeliness reliability of the different layers of the map.”
Further, Applicant argues that, “[t]he content of paragraph [0060] of Akbarzadeh focuses on ‘validation states’ (e.g., ‘localization health validated,’ ‘map health validated’) rather than mentioning ‘confidence of map features.’ There is no reference to a metric or value labeled as ‘confidence’ that quantifies trust in map features.”
The Applicant goes on to argue that “Akbarzadeh mentions in paragraph [0060] that tracking validation states at the <road segment.layer> scope, however, it does not connect these states to ‘precision’ of the layers. Validation states like ‘sanity pass only’ or ‘map health validated’ indicate general health or usability but do not represent a measure of precision for layers. Moreover, Akbarzadeh discloses in this paragraph that blocking areas or restricting driving based on validation states (e.g., ODD constraints, overrides), however, Akbarzadeh does not tie these states to ‘timeliness reliability’. There is no mention of how validation states reflect the timeliness of specific layers.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s analysis. The Akbarzadeh reference is mapped to the current claim limitation, “wherein the confidence of map features represents precision of different layers of a map.” There is an “and/or” conjunction between the next portion of the claim, which states, “and/or timeliness reliability of the different layers of the map.” The Examiner did not map to the timeliness section by selecting the “or” conjunction when interpreting the claim.
Akbarzadeh, in paragraph [0060], does discloses tracking detailed validation states that relate to, specifically, the <roadsegment.layer> within the different layers of the map. The Examiner interprets the <roadsegment.layer> as a specific map layer for the map feature of a road segment. The paragraph explains that detailed validation is tracked to determine when, where, and under what conditions an ego-machine can safely activate automated driving functions and even blocking off certain areas of the map to prevent them from being driveable if the data at that map level does not meet a certain confidence in that layer’s map features. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that, “[t]here is no reference to a metric or value labeled as ‘confidence’ that quantifies trust in map features.”
For these reasons, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Akbarzadeh fails to disclose at least the above-listed features (i) of claim 1.
Applicant argues that, “[t]he solution of Akbarzadeh focuses on an ‘HD map’ without defining ‘first-precision’ map and ‘second-precision’ map. Paragraph [0030] Akbarzadeh emphasizes aggregating multi-source mapstreams to update a single HD map (not multiple precision-specific maps) and does not involve ‘confidence of map features’ as a basis for updates. There is no indication of ‘uniformly updating’ distinct precision maps.” See Remarks p. 12, Response filed 10/9/2025.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the Cho reference is used as disclosing, “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 …”, as disclosed in Cho in FIG. 2 and [0050]-[0051]. The first map DB (database) is configured to store the entire map data and the second map DB (database) is configured to store differentially updated map data corresponding to differential data of map date to be updated in the first map database, as disclosed in [0010] of Cho. Therefore, the first map is a first precision map and the second map is a second precision map. The Examiner is interpreting the second map as the “first-precision map” because it has a higher precision map and the first map as the “second-precision map” since the “second map DB (database) is configured to store differentially updated map data corresponding to differentially updated map data corresponding to differential data of map data to be updated in the first map database”, Cho [0010].
Secondly, the Akbarzadeh reference is used as disclosing, “updating uniformly a first-precision map and a second-precision map based on the updated confidence of the map features … .” As disclosed in 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. … 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.”
This passage discloses that mapstreams are used to generate a respective map (considered to be the first-precision map) by undergoing a health aggregator (considered to determine the updated confidence of the map features), these generated maps are then used to generate a fused HD, also known as a high-definition map (considered to be the second-precision maps). Further, Akbarzadeh discloses in [0035], “… in various embodiments, … health checking or monitoring may be performed to update the map data more quickly—e.g., in real-time or substantially real-time.” This passage discloses that the updating is done uniformly, as required in the claim.
Therefore, the Examiner takes the position that the combination of the Cho and Akbarzadeh references disclose the claim limitation, “updating uniformly a first-precision map and a second-precision map based on the updated confidence of the map features”.
For these reasons, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Akbarzadeh fails to disclose at least the above-listed features (ii) of claim 1.
Applicant argues that, “Akbarzadeh discloses in paragraph [0114] the composition of the SoC 804 and its integration with the HD map 822. However, Akbarzadeh does not mention any concept of “vehicle-road coordination” (e.g., collaboration or communication between the vehicle and road infrastructure). Akbarzadeh also does not teach or suggest performing vehicle-road coordination based on two updated precision-specific maps.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure in Akbarzadeh that is cited in the Final Office Action dated 7/10/2025 includes controlling the vehicle in a variety of platforms and systems based on a HD map that obtains map refreshes or updates from a variety of sources/servers, as disclosed in [0114]. The Examiner interprets control of the vehicle based on updated high definition maps created from multiple sources as “vehicle-road coordination.” The Examiner also notes that the specification of the current application does not address what is involved with “vehicle-road coordination.”
This response addresses precision-specific maps previously.
Therefore, the Examiner takes the position that the Akbarzadeh references disclose the claim limitation, “performing vehicle-road coordination based on the updated first-precision map and the updated second-precision map”.
For these reasons, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Akbarzadeh fails to disclose at least the above-listed features (iii) of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended to include the limitation, “performing vehicle-road coordination based on the updated first-precision map and the updated second-precision map.” However, the Examiner does not find support in the specification to support the addition of this limitation by amendment. The specification does not discuss “vehicle-road coordination based on the updated first-precision map and the updated second-precision map.” There is no explanation defining how this limitation is performed. The specification only states “vehicle-road coordination” in the Technical Field, in paragraph [0002], “[t]he present disclosure relates to the field of artificial intelligence technology such as vehicle-road coordination and intelligent transportation” and in the Background, in paragraph [0003] “[with] the continuous evolution of vehicle-road coordination, higher and higher requirements have been put forward for maps.” Neither of these disclosures support the addition of the claim limitation, “performing vehicle-road coordination based on the updated first-precision map and the updated second-precision map.”
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) due to their dependency on rejected independent claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively.
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”, 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”, and “performing vehicle-road coordination based on the updated first-precision map and the updated second-precision map” in the context of this claim encompasses the user generating an updated confidence of map features based on the map update data and updating the first-precision map and the second-precision map based on the updated confidence of the map features and coordinating the vehicle-road performance based on the updated first-precision map and the updated second-precision map.
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.
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.
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 4, 12, and 20 (claim 12 is discussed but is representative of claims 4 and 20), the limitation “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”, 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, claims 4, 12, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
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 (hereinafter referred to as “Cho” and “Akbarzadeh”, 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
performing vehicle-road coordination based on the updated first-precision map and the updated second-precision map [see at least Akbarzadeh [0114] "...The SoC(s) 804 may be used to control the vehicle 800 in a variety of platforms and systems. For example, the SoC(s) 804 may be combined in a system (e.g., the system of the vehicle 800) with an HD map 822 which may obtain map refreshes and/or updates via a network interface 824 from one or more servers (e.g., server(s) 878 of FIG. 8D)."]
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; 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 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].]
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, 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 and Akbarzadeh, 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 and Akbarzadeh 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 and Akbarzadeh 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 and Akbarzadeh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, 9, and 17.
The combination of Cho and Akbarzadeh 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 and Akbarzadeh 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 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, in view of, Akbarzadeh, and further in view of Zhang, Publication US 2024/0385009) (hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”.)
As per claims 4, 12, and 20, (claim 12 is being discussed because it is representative of claims 4 and 20), the combination of Cho and Akbarzadeh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, 9, and 17.
The combination of Cho and Akbarzadeh 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 these limitations:
… 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 Cho and Akbarzadeh 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 applying the map to various operation task scenarios and improve overall operational efficiency. [See at least Zhang [0008].]
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, in view of, Akbarzadeh, further in view of Zhang, further in view of Zeng, et al., Publication US 2020/0226925, further in view of 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 further in view of 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, and Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 4, 12, and 20.
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, 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, Li, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, and further in view of 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 and Akbarzadeh, 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 and Akbarzadeh 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 and Akbarzadeh 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, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of 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, 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 and Li 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 [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 and Akbarzadeh 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, 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, 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, further in view of Zhou, further in view of Lee, Publication US 2023/0043586) (hereinafter referred to as “Lee”), and further in view of Zhang.
As per claims 8 and 16, (claim 16 is being discussed because it is representative of claim 8), the combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Zhou, and Tsukamoto, 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 and Akbarzadeh 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 and Akbarzadeh 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, 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, 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].]
The combination of Cho, Akbarzadeh, Zhou, and Lee 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, Zhou, and Lee 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].]
Conclusion
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