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 based on an application filed in Europe on 07/12/2022.
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.
1. Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 14 is directed to a method and claim 20 is directed to module. Therefore, claims 1,14 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 14 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
obtaining a first plurality of arcs of a first high definition (HD) digital map representing a road network in a geographic area, each of the first plurality of arcs representing a geometry of a respective lane of one of a plurality of a multi-lane roads;
obtaining a second plurality of arcs of a second standard definition (SD) digital map representing the road network in the geographic area, each of the second plurality of arcs representing all lanes of a respective one of the plurality of multi-lane roads;
determining correspondences between arc sections of ones of the first plurality of arcs of the first HD digital map and respective arc sections of ones of the second plurality of arcs of the second SD digital map; and
generating a map linkage data product that identifies the correspondences.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[Mental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method comprising:
obtaining a first plurality of arcs of a first high definition (HD) digital map representing a road network in a geographic area, each of the first plurality of arcs representing a geometry of a respective lane of one of a plurality of a multi-lane roads;
obtaining a second plurality of arcs of a second standard definition (SD) digital map representing the road network in the geographic area, each of the second plurality of arcs representing all lanes of a respective one of the plurality of multi-lane roads;
determining correspondences between arc sections of ones of the first plurality of arcs of the first HD digital map and respective arc sections of ones of the second plurality of arcs of the second SD digital map; and
generating a map linkage data product that identifies the correspondences.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 14 and 20 further recite “A method comprising: obtaining a first plurality of arcs of a first high definition (HD) digital map representing a road network in a geographic area; a method for determining a correspondence between digital maps including a first high definition (D) digital map comprising a first plurality of arcs representing a road network in a geographic area” and “a correspondence module to determine a correspondence between digital maps including a first high definition (HD) digital map comprising a first plurality of arcs representing a road network in a geographic area” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “generating a map linkage data product that identifies the correspondences.” in claim 1, “generating output data indicative of the corresponding location data with respect to the other one of the first and second digital maps” in claim 14 and generate output data indicative of the corresponding location data with respect to the other one of the first and second digital maps in claim 20 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the autonomous vehicle autonomously drives through the environment using the digital map data” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. 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. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 1 and 3-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 1 and 3-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 9.
Therefore, claim(s) 1, 3-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roeth et al (2020/0132476) and further in view of Mudda USPGPUB 2021/0231444.
2. As per claims 1,14 and 20 Roeth disclosed a method comprising:
Obtaining a first plurality of arcs of a first high definition (HD) [3D] digital map representing a road network in a geographic area, each of the first plurality of arcs representing a geometry of a respective lane of one of a plurality of a multi-lane roads (Paragraph. 0016); Examiner interpreted the high definition (HD) as coordinates to lane boundaries/road edges.
obtaining a second plurality of arcs of a second standard definition (SD) [2D] digital map representing the road network in the geographic area, each of the second plurality of arcs representing all lanes of a respective one of the plurality of multi-lane roads (Paragraph. 0017); Examiner interpreted the standard definition (SD) as coordinates to road intersections and basic attributes as road class.
determining correspondences between arc sections of ones of the first plurality of arcs of the first HD digital map and respective arc sections of ones of the second plurality of arcs of the second SD digital map (Paragraph. 0007-0011); [Examiner interpreted the arc sections as road segments] and
However, Roeth did not disclose generating, a map linkage data product that identifies correspondence between the digital maps.
In the same field of endeavor Mudda disclosed in one embodiment, the mapping platform 211 may be a platform with multiple interconnected components. The mapping platform 211 may include multiple servers, intelligent networking devices, computing devices, components and corresponding software for providing parametric representations of lane lines. In addition, it is noted that the mapping platform 211 may be a separate entity of the system 200, a part of the services platform 221, a part of the one or more services 223, or included within the vehicles 201 (e.g., an embedded navigation system) (Paragraph. 0097).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated in one embodiment, the mapping platform 211 may be a platform with multiple interconnected components. The mapping platform 211 may include multiple servers, intelligent networking devices, computing devices, components and corresponding software for providing parametric representations of lane lines. In addition, it is noted that the mapping platform 211 may be a separate entity of the system 200, a part of the services platform 221, a part of the one or more services 223, or included within the vehicles 201 (e.g., an embedded navigation system) as taught by Mudda in the method and system of Roeth to simplifies the digital map by reducing its complexity.
3. As per claim 3 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein determining the correspondences comprises determining the correspondences based at least in part on a similarity in shape between one or more of the arc sessions of ones of the plurality of arcs and one or more of the respecttive arc sections of ones of the second plurality of arcs (Roeth, Paragraph. 0020).
4. As per claim 4 Roeth-Mudda disclosed further comprising assessing the similarity in shape based on a similarity in shape of a middle portion of one or more of the arc sections of ones of the first plurality of arcs and one or more of the respective arc sections of ones of the second plurality arc (Roeth, Paragraph.0072).
5. As per claim 5 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein assessing the similarity in shape comprises: associating respective markers with mid-points of the arc sections of ones of the first plurality of arcs and of arc sections of ones of the second plurality of arcs; and comparing shapes of the arc sections of ones of the first plurality of arcs and the arc sections of ones of the second plurality of arcs starting from the respective markers (Roeth, Paragraph. 0017).
6. As per claim 6 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein generating the map linkage data product comprises: exploring paths between reference points along the first plurality of arcs and the second plurality of arcs to obtain connectivity information; and using the connectivity information for generating the map linkage data product Roeth, Paragraph. 0017).
7. As per claim 7 Roeth-Mudda disclosed further comprising: determining a correspondence between the connectivity information; and determining, based on the correspondence between the connectivity information, a second correspondence between the first digital map and the second digital map (Mudda, Paragraph. 0090). The claim 7 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
8. As per claim 8 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein the map linkage data product comprises data indicative of arc sections of the first digital map, and, for each arc section of the first digital map, data indicative of an arc section of the second digital map having a correspondence with that arc section of the first digital map (Roeth, Paragraph. 0045).
9. As per claim 9 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein: each arc section is a longitudinal portion of an arc of a respective one of the digital maps; the data indicative of each arc section comprises data indicative of the longitudinal portion of the arc of the first or second digital map defining the arc section (Roeth, Paragraph. 0045); at least some of the arc sections of at least one of the digital maps are a lateral portion of the arc of the respective one of the digital maps; and the data indicative of such arc sections further comprises data indicative of the lateral portion of the arc of the one of the digital maps defining the arc section (Roeth, Paragraph. 0007).
10. As per claim 10 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein: the first digital map comprises lane geometry data for which some or all of the first plurality of arcs are associated with data indicative of a set of lane trajectory lines representing the trajectory of each one of the group of one or more lanes of a road area represented by that arc (Roeth, Paragraph. 0007); and the arc section that is a lateral portion of an arc corresponds to a subset of the set of lane trajectory lines associated with that arc (Roeth, Paragraph. 0020).
11. As per claim 11 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein the first digital map comprises data indicative of a lane geometry of the road network and the second digital map does not include data indicative of the lane geometry of the road network (Roeth, Paragraph. 0007).
12. As per claim 12 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein the map linkage data product includes a map linkage data layer associated with a map layer comprising first digital map data and/or a map layer comprising second digital map data (Mudda, Paragraph. 0109-0110).
13. As per claim 13 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein: the first digital map and the second digital map are tile-based digital maps, each tile comprising map data in respect of a given geographic area; and the map linkage data product is also tile-based, with each map linkage data product tile comprising map linkage data in respect of a corresponding one or more tiles of the digital maps (Mudda, Paragraph. 0098). The claim 13 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
15. As per claim 15 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein determining the corresponding location data with respect to the other one of the digital maps comprises;
determining one or more given arc sections of the one of the first and second digital maps included in the map linkage data corresponding to the location data (Mudda, Paragraph. 0038); and
identifying, using the map linkage data, one or more corresponding arc sections in the other one of the first and second digital maps included in the map linkage data corresponding to the one or more given arc sections (Roeth, Paragraph. 0082);
wherein generating the data for output comprises generating data for output indicative of the one or more corresponding arc sections of the other one of the first and second digital maps (Roeth, Paragraph. 0042). The claim 15 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
16. As per claim 16 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein the first digital map is not indicative of a lane geometry of the road network and the second digital map is not indicative of a lane geometry of the road network (Roeth, Paragraph. 0007).
17. As per claim 17 Roeth-Mudda disclosed further comprising: obtaining the location data with respect to the one of the first and second digital maps based on data received from one of a first digital map based application and a second digital map based application, wherein the first digital map based application uses the first digital map and the second digital map based application uses the second digital map (Roeth, Paragraph. 0031-0033); and
outputting the data indicative of the corresponding location data to another one of the first digital map-based application and the second digital map based application for use thereby (Mudda, Paragraph. 0093). The claim 17 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
18. As per claim 18 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein: the one of the first digital map-based application and the second digital map based application is a navigation application; and
the other one of the first digital map based application and the second digital map based application is an application that uses the corresponding location data to determine a representation of a route with respect to the second digital map for use in providing motion planning for a vehicle (Roeth, Paragraph. 0031-0033).
19. As per claim 19 Roeth-Mudda disclosed wherein the other one of the first digital map-based application and the second digital map-based application uses the corresponding location data in obtaining horizon data indicative of a horizon for the vehicle (Mudda, Paragraph. 0105). The claim 19 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
20. Claim limitation “correspondence module”, and “correspondence module being configured to” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “communication” or “storing” without
reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-14 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: As to “correspondence module” there is no structure indicated in the specification. As to “correspondence module being configure to” there was no structure found in the specification.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Response to Arguments
21. Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument is as follows.
A. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “Obtaining a first plurality of arcs of a first high definition (HD) digital map representing a road network in a geographic area, each of the first plurality of arcs representing a geometry of a respective lane of one of a plurality of a multi-lane roads [Here and in the following, the “digital road-accurate road map” can designate a road map that contains only information relating to a road course and/or a road, but not containing information regarding individual lanes on the road. For example, the road-accurate road map can have one or more nodes and edges, where an edge can be used to represent a road and/or a road segment and a node can represent an intersection. The road-accurate map can as it were designate a graph with nodes and edges. The edges can be given and/or represented by arrows and the nodes can be given and/or represented by points in the graph and/or in the road-accurate road map] (Paragraph. 0016);
obtaining a second plurality of arcs of a second standard definition (SD) digital map representing the road network in the geographic area, each of the second plurality of arcs representing all lanes of a respective one of the plurality of multi-lane roads [In the following, the method according to the present invention is summarized. The road-accurate road map can be read for example in a data processing device, from a data storage device of the data processing device. The road-accurate road map can include one or more nodes and/or one or more edges for the geographical description of one or more roads and/or of one or more intersections. The providing of the road-accurate road map can thus include a reading in of the road-accurate road map and/or a reading in of the at least one edge and/or of the at least one node. The road-accurate road map can then be analyzed, for example on the basis of the at least one node and/or the at least one edge, and can be subdivided and/or segmented into at least one road segment. In particular, the road-accurate road map can have a plurality of roads that can each be subdivided into individual road segments, for example based on the nodes and/or edges. In other words, roads and/or the at least one road can be identified based on the nodes and/or edges. Subsequently, each of the identified road segments can be mapped, modeled, imaged, and/or imitated in a separate road model. After this, for each of the road models, each of which can be assigned to a road segment, at least a part of the parameters of the respective road model can be varied and/or changed. In particular, the parameters of each road model can be iteratively varied multiple times, such that parameters of different road models can be varied simultaneously or one after the other in a temporal sequence. The parameter values can be varied independently of the trajectory data. In addition, the trajectory data can be assigned to the respective road models, for example on the basis of geographical coordinates of the trajectory data and/or of the road-accurate road map. Here it can be ascertained which of the trajectory data are located in one of the road segments, so that, based on this, the trajectory data associated with the individual road models can be ascertained. In particular, the step of modeling in the road model can take place before the step of allocating the trajectory data to the road model. Subsequently, it can be checked how well the trajectory data have been imitated and/or imaged by the respective road model; a probability value can be ascertained as a measure of the goodness and/or quality of such a mapping for each of the road models. In the context of the present invention, the probability can as it were designate a measure for a quality and/or goodness of a mapping, imaging, and/or imitation of the trajectory data by the corresponding road model. In particular, for each of the road models a plurality of probability values can be ascertained through multiple independent varying of a part of the parameters of each road model. From the probability values ascertained for each of the road models, at least one probability value can then be selected in each case that is higher or is a highest probability value compared to other probability values of the same road model, and which can thus correspond to an optimal configuration of the associated road model and/or to the optimal parameter values of the associated road model. In addition, in the context of the ascertaining of the highest probability value, the so-called simulated annealing method can be used. This can bring it about that change operations that worsen an agreement between the road model and trajectory data will be accepted less frequently as the time of the optimization process progresses, and/or that the optimization of the road model ends directly in the optimal parameter values of the road model, i.e. the most probable and/or best road model. Finally, in this way the probability values and the parameter values of the individual road models can be iteratively optimized. The optimal parameter values of the individual road models can be selected and/or chosen and can thus represent a lane-accurate road map. In other words, the lane-accurate road map can be given by the optimal parameters of the at least one road model. The method according to the present invention can thus provide that one or more road segments are mapped in one or more road models, and subsequently the optimal parameter values of the one road model or of the road models are ascertained iteratively] (Paragraph. 0020);
determining correspondences between arc sections of ones of the first plurality of arcs of the first HD digital map and respective arc sections of ones of the second plurality of arcs of the second SD digital map”. (Paragraph. 0007-0011)
B. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “the use of map linkage data indicative of correspondences between arc sections of ones of a first plurality of arcs of a first digital map and respective arc sections of ones of a second plurality of arcs of a second digital map, where each of the first plurality arcs represents a geometry of a respective plane of one of a plurality of a multi-lane roads and each of the second plurality of arcs represents all lanes of a respective one of the plurality of multi-lane roads” [the method according to the present invention is summarized. The road-accurate road map can be read for example in a data processing device, from a data storage device of the data processing device. The road-accurate road map can include one or more nodes and/or one or more edges for the geographical description of one or more roads and/or of one or more intersections. The providing of the road-accurate road map can thus include a reading in of the road-accurate road map and/or a reading in of the at least one edge and/or of the at least one node. The road-accurate road map can then be analyzed, for example on the basis of the at least one node and/or the at least one edge, and can be subdivided and/or segmented into at least one road segment. In particular, the road-accurate road map can have a plurality of roads that can each be subdivided into individual road segments, for example based on the nodes and/or edges. In other words, roads and/or the at least one road can be identified based on the nodes and/or edges. Subsequently, each of the identified road segments can be mapped, modeled, imaged, and/or imitated in a separate road model. After this, for each of the road models, each of which can be assigned to a road segment, at least a part of the parameters of the respective road model can be varied and/or changed. In particular, the parameters of each road model can be iteratively varied multiple times, such that parameters of different road models can be varied simultaneously or one after the other in a temporal sequence. The parameter values can be varied independently of the trajectory data. In addition, the trajectory data can be assigned to the respective road models, for example on the basis of geographical coordinates of the trajectory data and/or of the road-accurate road map. Here it can be ascertained which of the trajectory data are located in one of the road segments, so that, based on this, the trajectory data associated with the individual road models can be ascertained. In particular, the step of modeling in the road model can take place before the step of allocating the trajectory data to the road model. Subsequently, it can be checked how well the trajectory data have been imitated and/or imaged by the respective road model; a probability value can be ascertained as a measure of the goodness and/or quality of such a mapping for each of the road models. In the context of the present invention, the probability can as it were designate a measure for a quality and/or goodness of a mapping, imaging, and/or imitation of the trajectory data by the corresponding road model. In particular, for each of the road models a plurality of probability values can be ascertained through multiple independent varying of a part of the parameters of each road model. From the probability values ascertained for each of the road models, at least one probability value can then be selected in each case that is higher or is a highest probability value compared to other probability values of the same road model, and which can thus correspond to an optimal configuration of the associated road model and/or to the optimal parameter values of the associated road model. In addition, in the context of the ascertaining of the highest probability value, the so-called simulated annealing method can be used. This can bring it about that change operations that worsen an agreement between the road model and trajectory data will be accepted less frequently as the time of the optimization process progresses, and/or that the optimization of the road model ends directly in the optimal parameter values of the road model, i.e. the most probable and/or best road model. Finally, in this way the probability values and the parameter values of the individual road models can be iteratively optimized. The optimal parameter values of the individual road models can be selected and/or chosen and can thus represent a lane-accurate road map. In other words, the lane-accurate road map can be given by the optimal parameters of the at least one road model. The method according to the present invention can thus provide that one or more road segments are mapped in one or more road models, and subsequently the optimal parameter values of the one road model or of the road models are ascertained iteratively] (Paragraph. 0020).
Conclusion
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
23. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
24. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667