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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments concerning step 2A, prong I of the analysis amount to a general allegation that the claims cannot be performed in the human mind without specifically pointing out any particular limitations or any reasoning to support the allegation.
Additionally, regarding step 2A, Prong II of the analysis, Applicant’s arguments regarding the limitation “obtaining a two-dimensional road network” are not persuasive. The limitation does not meaningfully limit the claim, as the claim inherently requires a step of gathering the data necessary to perform the abstract idea steps. This limitation does not provide any details beyond the necessary data gathering.
Furthermore, regarding step 2A, Prong II and step 2B of the analysis, Examiner notes that, when evaluating claim elements (individually and as a whole) for an improvement, that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement must be provided by one or more additional elements, either individually or in combination with the recited judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Applicant’s cited improvements are provided by the construction step, which is part of the judicial exception.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 7, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of further limiting amendments made to the claims, changing the scope of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 3, 9, and 15 (now incorporated into claims 1, 7, and 13) under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. While Boucherat discloses applying different slope corrections to the two paths of the divided highway, Boucherat teaches using one road object 910 to represent the two paths (see at least [0061] and figure 9B).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 4, 10, and 16 (now incorporated into claims 1, 7, and 13) under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the claims only require adjustment of relative elevations along a one-dimensional line) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 1-18 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
Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to a method, device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, for constructing a three-dimensional road network. Therefore, claims 1, 7 and 13 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 following 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 independent claims, claims 7 and 13, are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A three-dimensional road network construction method performed by an electronic device, the method comprising:
obtaining a two-dimensional road network, the two-dimensional road network comprising a plurality of paths, each path being formed by connecting a plurality of nodes;
determining a relative elevation for a target node of a current path overlapping the current path and/or another path among the nodes of the current path, the relative elevation representing a highest height of the current path at the target node from a reference plane;
adjusting relative elevations of other nodes of the current path based on the relative elevation of the target node, wherein the adjusted relative elevations form a longitudinal slope of the current path that is less than or equal to a maximum longitudinal slope;
merging the current path and another parallel path belonging to an upward and downward path category among the plurality of paths into one path;
determining relative elevations of nodes constituting a center line of the current path according to the relative elevations of the nodes of the current path and a width of the current path; and
constructing a three-dimensional road corresponding to the current path according to the width of the current path and the relative elevations of the nodes of the center line of the current path to obtain a three-dimensional road network.
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, the steps of determining a relative elevation, determining relative elevations, adjusting relative elevations, merging paths, and constructing a three-dimensional road in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, obtained, 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 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
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”):
representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A three-dimensional road network construction method performed by an electronic device, the method comprising:
obtaining a two-dimensional road network, the two-dimensional road network comprising a plurality of paths, each path being formed by connecting a plurality of nodes;
determining a relative elevation for a target node of a current path overlapping the current path and/or another path among the nodes of the current path, the relative elevation representing a highest height of the current path at the target node from a reference plane;
adjusting relative elevations of other nodes of the current path based on the relative elevation of the target node, wherein the adjusted relative elevations form a longitudinal slope of the current path that is less than or equal to a maximum longitudinal slope;
merging the current path and another parallel path belonging to an upward and downward path category among the plurality of paths into one path;
determining relative elevations of nodes constituting a center line of the current path according to the relative elevations of the nodes of the current path and a width of the current path; and
constructing a three-dimensional road corresponding to the current path according to the width of the current path and the relative elevations of the nodes of the center line of the current path to obtain a three-dimensional road network.
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 (electronic device) to perform the process. In particular, the step of obtaining a two-dimensional road network is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of obtaining information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to no more than mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Lastly, claims 1, 7, and 13 further recite an electronic device comprising a memory, one or more programs, one or more processors, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose mapping 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, memory, program(s), processor(s), and storage medium are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not 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 an electronic device to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere application of the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitation of obtaining a two-dimensional road network is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional limitation of obtaining a two-dimensional road network is well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the two-dimensional road network is anything other than conventional map data. 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.. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 14, and 17-18 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 2, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 14, and 17-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, and 17-18 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over US 20130328863 A1, filed 11/29/2012 and published 12/12/2013, hereinafter “Pirwani”, further in view of US 20140200864 A1, filed 01/16/2014, hereinafter “Bauschke”, and further in view of US 20080298891 A1, filed 06/04/2007, hereinafter “Boucherat”.
Regarding claim 1, Pirwani teaches a three-dimensional road network construction method performed by an electronic device. See at least [0094] and figure 6, method 600 performed by a computing device.
the method comprising: obtaining a two-dimensional road network, the two-dimensional road network comprising a plurality of paths, each path being formed by connecting a plurality of nodes. See at least [0018], [0095]-[0096], and figure 6, steps 602-604, wherein road network data is received for junction and non-junction locations is received. The road network data includes two-dimensional coordinate data for a two-dimensional map. The junction locations represent nodes in the road network. The non-junction locations represent road segments connecting the nodes and are associated with road designation data identifying a number or name of the associated road.
determining a relative elevation for a target node of a current path overlapping the current path and/or another path among the nodes of the current path, the relative elevation representing a highest height of the current path at the target node from a reference plane. See at least [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0042], [0097], and figure 6, step 606, wherein height values are determined for junction nodes. The height values can be either actual height information (relative to the XY plane) or relative height information (relative to the road being overlapped). The height values are obtained by finding a minimum or maximum value of an optimization function. Additionally, see at least [0018]-[0019], wherein junction nodes include intersections and grade-separated crossings, where one road overlaps other roads. See at least [0027]-[0028] and figure 1, wherein junction node 115 is a node where multiple paths overlap.
determining relative elevations of nodes constituting a center line of the current path according to the relative elevations of the nodes of the current path and a width of the current path. See at least [0073]-[0077], [0099]-[0101], figure 5, and figure 6, steps 608-612, wherein height values are determined for non-junction nodes along a centerline of the road using a height function. The height function is determined based on the height information of the junction nodes of the road. See figure 5 for an example, wherein the relative height information of the junction nodes 502 and 504 is used to determine the height information of nodes 1-5 along a centerline of the road. See at least [0105], wherein a width of the road is determined.
and constructing a three-dimensional road corresponding to the current path according to the width of the current path and the relative elevations of the nodes of the center line of the current path to obtain a three-dimensional road network. See at least [0077], [0104]-[0107], figure 5, and figure 6, steps 618-622, wherein the width of the road and the height values along the centerline of the road are used to generated a three-dimensional polygonal representation of the road. Additionally, see at least [0023], wherein the output is a ribbon-like representation of the road network in 3D space.
Pirwani remains silent on adjusting relative elevations of other nodes of the current path based on the relative elevation of the target node, wherein the adjusted relative elevations form a longitudinal slope of the current path that is less than or equal to a maximum longitudinal slope; merging the current path and another parallel path belonging to an upward and downward path category among the plurality of paths into one path.
Bauschke teaches adjusting relative elevations of other nodes of the current path based on the relative elevation of the target node, wherein the adjusted relative elevations form a longitudinal slope of the current path that is less than or equal to a maximum longitudinal slope. See at least [0143], [0147], and figures 6A-6C, wherein the elevations of points on the path are modified to the path remains within a maximum slope constraint.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Pirwani with Bauschke’s technique of adjusting relative elevations of nodes of the current path so the current path satisfies a maximum longitudinal slope constraint. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables the automated generation of feasible three-dimensional road networks while satisfying certain constraints, as recognized by Bauschke (see at least [0011]-[0012] and [0053]-[0054]).
Boucherat teaches merging the current path and another parallel path belonging to an upward and downward path category among the plurality of paths into one path. See at least [0057], [0060]-[0061], and figures 9A-B, wherein two parallel paths representing the upwards and downwards portions of a divided highway are represented by 920 and 930. The strings, or line data, of the two roadways are merged to form one roadway object. While Boucherat discloses applying different slope corrections to the two paths, Boucherat teaches using one road object 910 to represent the two paths (see at least [0061]).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Pirwani with Boucherat’s technique of considering two paths belonging to an upward and downward path category as one road. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables road network models to correct road model data to smooth intersections, as recognized by Boucherat (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Pirwani, Bauschke, and Boucherat in combination disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and additionally teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining an endpoint node in the current path for connection to another path; setting the relative elevation of the endpoint node of the path to the relative elevation of the endpoint node of the another path for connection; setting the relative elevation of the endpoint node of the another path for connection to the relative elevation of the endpoint node of the path. See at least [0055], wherein the ending junction nodes are determined for the current path r, and a path r’ that connects to the current path. The two nodes meet at the intersection, and their heights are set to the same maximum height constraint.
Pirwani remains silent on setting the relative elevations when a relative elevation of the endpoint node is less than a relative elevation of an endpoint node of the another path for connection or when a relative elevation of the endpoint node is greater than a relative elevation of an endpoint node of the another path for connection. As discussed above, Pirwani teaches setting the relative elevation of the two endpoint nodes to the same maximum relative elevation. However, Pirwani does not explicitly teach the set elevation being the relative elevation of one of the endpoint nodes.
Boucherat teaches setting the relative elevations when a relative elevation of the endpoint node is less than a relative elevation of an endpoint node of the another path for connection or when a relative elevation of the endpoint node is greater than a relative elevation of an endpoint node of the another path for connection. See at least [0032], [0035], and figures 5A-5C, wherein the relative elevation for the two roads 505 and 515 are set to the top layer of the primary road of the intersection, i.e. the surface with the highest relative elevation in the intersection. The primary road is the road determined to have the correct elevation. In combination with Pirwani’s technique of setting the two endpoint nodes to the same maximum height constraint, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Pirwani with Boucherat’s technique of setting the relative elevations to a relative elevation of one of the two endpoint nodes, based on the relative elevation of the top surface of the two endpoint nodes. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables road network models to correct road model data to smooth intersections, as recognized by Boucherat (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Pirwani, Bauschke, and Boucherat in combination disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and additionally teaches wherein a node closer to the target node has a more increased relative elevation than the other nodes. See at least [0060]-[0061] and figure 4, function 404. The target node with the largest relative elevation is situated at position x = 0. Nodes closer to the target node, at x = 1-50, have more increased relative elevation than the other nodes, at x = 50-100.
Pirwani remains silent on wherein the adjusting relative elevations of nodes of the current path further comprises: reducing the relative elevation of the target node with a largest relative elevation in the current path, and increasing relative elevations of the other nodes in the current path.
Bauschke teaches wherein the adjusting relative elevations of nodes of the current path further comprises: reducing the relative elevation of the target node with a largest relative elevation in the current path, and increasing relative elevations of the other nodes in the current path. See at least [0143], [0147], and figures 6A-6C, wherein the elevations of points on the path are modified to the path remains within a maximum slope constraint. The tallest points are reduced in height, and the lowest points are increased in height.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Pirwani with Bauschke’s technique of reducing a relative elevation of a target node with a largest relative elevation in the current path, and increasing relative elevations of other nodes in the current path. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables the automated generation of feasible three-dimensional road networks while satisfying certain constraints, as recognized by Bauschke (see at least [0011]-[0012] and [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Pirwani, Bauschke, and Boucherat in combination disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and additionally teaches wherein after the constructing a three-dimensional road corresponding to the current path according to the width of the current path and the relative elevations of the nodes of the center line of the current path to obtain a three- dimensional road network, the method further comprises: obtaining a topological connectivity relationship between the plurality of paths; connecting the three-dimensional roads according to the topological connectivity relationship. See at least [0018], [0022]-[0024], [0075], and figure 5, wherein the obtained road network data includes topological connectivity relationships between the road segments, and the three-dimensional polygonal roads are connected based on the road network data.
Pirwani remains silent on traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths; and setting traffic markings at corresponding locations in the three-dimensional road according to the traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths.
Boucherat teaches traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths; and setting traffic markings at corresponding locations in the three-dimensional road according to the traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths. See at least [0045]-[0048] and figure 6, wherein traffic marking attributes including medians, traffic islands, turn lanes, etc. are obtained and inserted into the road model at predefined locations. In combination with Pirwani’s teaching, discussed above, of three-dimensional roads associated with the plurality of paths containing nodes, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Pirwani with Boucherat’s technique of setting traffic markings at corresponding locations in the three-dimensional road according to the traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables road network models to correct road model data to smooth intersections, as recognized by Boucherat (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Pirwani teaches an electronic device, comprising a memory and one or more programs, the one or more programs being stored in the memory and configured to be executed by one or more processors and causing the electronic device to perform a three-dimensional road network construction method. See at least [0094] and figure 6, method 600 performed by a computing device. Additionally, see at least [0114]-[0115] and figure 7, memory 756 containing program 762 to be executed by processor 754.
the method including: obtaining a two-dimensional road network, the two-dimensional road network comprising a plurality of paths, each path being formed by connecting a plurality of nodes. See at least [0018], [0095]-[0096], and figure 6, steps 602-604, wherein road network data is received for junction and non-junction locations is received. The road network data includes two-dimensional coordinate data for a two-dimensional map. The junction locations represent nodes in the road network. The non-junction locations represent road segments connecting the nodes and are associated with road designation data identifying a number or name of the associated road.
determining a relative elevation for a target node of a current path overlapping the current path and/or another path among the nodes of the current path, the relative elevation representing a highest height of the current path at the target node from a reference plane. See at least [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0042], [0097], and figure 6, step 606, wherein height values are determined for junction nodes. The height values can be either actual height information (relative to the XY plane) or relative height information (relative to the road being overlapped). The height values are obtained by finding a minimum or maximum value of an optimization function. Additionally, see at least [0018]-[0019], wherein junction nodes include intersections and grade-separated crossings, where one road overlaps other roads. See at least [0027]-[0028] and figure 1, wherein junction node 115 is a node where multiple paths overlap.
determining relative elevations of nodes constituting a center line of the current path according to the relative elevations of the nodes of the current path and a width of the current path. See at least [0073]-[0077], [0099]-[0101], figure 5, and figure 6, steps 608-612, wherein height values are determined for non-junction nodes along a centerline of the road using a height function. The height function is determined based on the height information of the junction nodes of the road. See figure 5 for an example, wherein the relative height information of the junction nodes 502 and 504 is used to determine the height information of nodes 1-5 along a centerline of the road. See at least [0105], wherein a width of the road is determined.
and constructing a three-dimensional road corresponding to the current path according to the width of the current path and the relative elevations of the nodes of the center line of the current path to obtain a three-dimensional road network. See at least [0077], [0104]-[0107], figure 5, and figure 6, steps 618-622, wherein the width of the road and the height values along the centerline of the road are used to generated a three-dimensional polygonal representation of the road. Additionally, see at least [0023], wherein the output is a ribbon-like representation of the road network in 3D space.
Pirwani remains silent on adjusting relative elevations of other nodes of the current path based on the relative elevation of the target node, wherein the adjusted relative elevations form a longitudinal slope of the current path that is less than or equal to a maximum longitudinal slope; merging the current path and another parallel path belonging to an upward and downward path category among the plurality of paths into one path.
Bauschke teaches adjusting relative elevations of other nodes of the current path based on the relative elevation of the target node, wherein the adjusted relative elevations form a longitudinal slope of the current path that is less than or equal to a maximum longitudinal slope. See at least [0143], [0147], and figures 6A-6C, wherein the elevations of points on the path are modified to the path remains within a maximum slope constraint.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Pirwani with Bauschke’s technique of adjusting relative elevations of nodes of the current path so the current path satisfies a maximum longitudinal slope constraint. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables the automated generation of feasible three-dimensional road networks while satisfying certain constraints, as recognized by Bauschke (see at least [0011]-[0012] and [0053]-[0054]).
Boucherat teaches merging the current path and another parallel path belonging to an upward and downward path category among the plurality of paths into one path. See at least [0057], [0060]-[0061], and figures 9A-B, wherein two parallel paths representing the upwards and downwards portions of a divided highway are represented by 920 and 930. The strings, or line data, of the two roadways are merged to form one roadway object. While Boucherat discloses applying different slope corrections to the two paths, Boucherat teaches using one road object 910 to represent the two paths (see at least [0061]).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Pirwani with Boucherat’s technique of considering two paths belonging to an upward and downward path category as one road. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables road network models to correct road model data to smooth intersections, as recognized by Boucherat (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 8, Pirwani, Bauschke, and Boucherat in combination disclose all of the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above, and additionally teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining an endpoint node in the current path for connection to another path; setting the relative elevation of the endpoint node of the path to the relative elevation of the endpoint node of the another path for connection; setting the relative elevation of the endpoint node of the another path for connection to the relative elevation of the endpoint node of the path. See at least [0055], wherein the ending junction nodes are determined for the current path r, and a path r’ that connects to the current path. The two nodes meet at the intersection, and their heights are set to the same maximum height constraint.
Pirwani remains silent on setting the relative elevations when a relative elevation of the endpoint node is less than a relative elevation of an endpoint node of the another path for connection or when a relative elevation of the endpoint node is greater than a relative elevation of an endpoint node of the another path for connection. As discussed above, Pirwani teaches setting the relative elevation of the two endpoint nodes to the same maximum relative elevation. However, Pirwani does not explicitly teach the set elevation being the relative elevation of one of the endpoint nodes.
Boucherat teaches setting the relative elevations when a relative elevation of the endpoint node is less than a relative elevation of an endpoint node of the another path for connection or when a relative elevation of the endpoint node is greater than a relative elevation of an endpoint node of the another path for connection. See at least [0032], [0035], and figures 5A-5C, wherein the relative elevation for the two roads 505 and 515 are set to the top layer of the primary road of the intersection, i.e. the surface with the highest relative elevation in the intersection. The primary road is the road determined to have the correct elevation. In combination with Pirwani’s technique of setting the two endpoint nodes to the same maximum height constraint, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Pirwani with Boucherat’s technique of setting the relative elevations to a relative elevation of one of the two endpoint nodes, based on the relative elevation of the top surface of the two endpoint nodes. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables road network models to correct road model data to smooth intersections, as recognized by Boucherat (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Pirwani, Bauschke, and Boucherat in combination disclose all of the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above, and additionally teaches wherein a node closer to the target node has a more increased relative elevation than the other nodes. See at least [0060]-[0061] and figure 4, function 404. The target node with the largest relative elevation is situated at position x = 0. Nodes closer to the target node, at x = 1-50, have more increased relative elevation than the other nodes, at x = 50-100.
Pirwani remains silent on wherein the adjusting relative elevations of nodes of the current path further comprises: reducing the relative elevation of the target node with a largest relative elevation in the current path, and increasing relative elevations of the other nodes in the current path.
Bauschke teaches wherein the adjusting relative elevations of nodes of the current path further comprises: reducing the relative elevation of the target node with a largest relative elevation in the current path, and increasing relative elevations of the other nodes in the current path. See at least [0143], [0147], and figures 6A-6C, wherein the elevations of points on the path are modified to the path remains within a maximum slope constraint. The tallest points are reduced in height, and the lowest points are increased in height.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Pirwani with Bauschke’s technique of reducing a relative elevation of a target node with a largest relative elevation in the current path, and increasing relative elevations of other nodes in the current path. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables the automated generation of feasible three-dimensional road networks while satisfying certain constraints, as recognized by Bauschke (see at least [0011]-[0012] and [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Pirwani, Bauschke, and Boucherat in combination disclose all of the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above, and additionally teaches wherein after the constructing a three-dimensional road corresponding to the current path according to the width of the current path and the relative elevations of the nodes of the center line of the current path to obtain a three- dimensional road network, the method further comprises: obtaining a topological connectivity relationship between the plurality of paths; connecting the three-dimensional roads according to the topological connectivity relationship. See at least [0018], [0022]-[0024], [0075], and figure 5, wherein the obtained road network data includes topological connectivity relationships between the road segments, and the three-dimensional polygonal roads are connected based on the road network data.
Pirwani remains silent on traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths; and setting traffic markings at corresponding locations in the three-dimensional road according to the traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths.
Boucherat teaches traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths; and setting traffic markings at corresponding locations in the three-dimensional road according to the traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths. See at least [0045]-[0048] and figure 6, wherein traffic marking attributes including medians, traffic islands, turn lanes, etc. are obtained and inserted into the road model at predefined locations. In combination with Pirwani’s teaching, discussed above, of three-dimensional roads associated with the plurality of paths containing nodes, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Pirwani with Boucherat’s technique of setting traffic markings at corresponding locations in the three-dimensional road according to the traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables road network models to correct road model data to smooth intersections, as recognized by Boucherat (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 13, Pirwani teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing instructions, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, causing the electronic device to perform a three-dimensional road network construction method. See at least [0094] and figure 6, method 600 performed by a computing device. Additionally, see at least [0114]-[0115] and figure 7, non-transitory memory 756 containing program 762 to be executed by processor 754.
the method including: obtaining a two-dimensional road network, the two-dimensional road network comprising a plurality of paths, each path being formed by connecting a plurality of nodes. See at least [0018], [0095]-[0096], and figure 6, steps 602-604, wherein road network data is received for junction and non-junction locations is received. The road network data includes two-dimensional coordinate data for a two-dimensional map. The junction locations represent nodes in the road network. The non-junction locations represent road segments connecting the nodes and are associated with road designation data identifying a number or name of the associated road.
determining a relative elevation for a target node of a current path overlapping the current path and/or another path among the nodes of the current path, the relative elevation representing a highest height of the current path at the target node from a reference plane. See at least [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0042], [0097], and figure 6, step 606, wherein height values are determined for junction nodes. The height values can be either actual height information (relative to the XY plane) or relative height information (relative to the road being overlapped). The height values are obtained by finding a minimum or maximum value of an optimization function. Additionally, see at least [0018]-[0019], wherein junction nodes include intersections and grade-separated crossings, where one road overlaps other roads. See at least [0027]-[0028] and figure 1, wherein junction node 115 is a node where multiple paths overlap.
determining relative elevations of nodes constituting a center line of the current path according to the relative elevations of the nodes of the current path and a width of the current path. See at least [0073]-[0077], [0099]-[0101], figure 5, and figure 6, steps 608-612, wherein height values are determined for non-junction nodes along a centerline of the road using a height function. The height function is determined based on the height information of the junction nodes of the road. See figure 5 for an example, wherein the relative height information of the junction nodes 502 and 504 is used to determine the height information of nodes 1-5 along a centerline of the road. See at least [0105], wherein a width of the road is determined.
and constructing a three-dimensional road corresponding to the current path according to the width of the current path and the relative elevations of the nodes of the center line of the current path to obtain a three-dimensional road network. See at least [0077], [0104]-[0107], figure 5, and figure 6, steps 618-622, wherein the width of the road and the height values along the centerline of the road are used to generated a three-dimensional polygonal representation of the road. Additionally, see at least [0023], wherein the output is a ribbon-like representation of the road network in 3D space.
Pirwani remains silent on adjusting relative elevations of other nodes of the current path based on the relative elevation of the target node, wherein the adjusted relative elevations form a longitudinal slope of the current path that is less than or equal to a maximum longitudinal slope; merging the current path and another parallel path belonging to an upward and downward path category among the plurality of paths into one path.
Bauschke teaches adjusting relative elevations of other nodes of the current path based on the relative elevation of the target node, wherein the adjusted relative elevations form a longitudinal slope of the current path that is less than or equal to a maximum longitudinal slope. See at least [0143], [0147], and figures 6A-6C, wherein the elevations of points on the path are modified to the path remains within a maximum slope constraint.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Pirwani with Bauschke’s technique of adjusting relative elevations of nodes of the current path so the current path satisfies a maximum longitudinal slope constraint. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables the automated generation of feasible three-dimensional road networks while satisfying certain constraints, as recognized by Bauschke (see at least [0011]-[0012] and [0053]-[0054]).
Boucherat teaches merging the current path and another parallel path belonging to an upward and downward path category among the plurality of paths into one path. See at least [0057], [0060]-[0061], and figures 9A-B, wherein two parallel paths representing the upwards and downwards portions of a divided highway are represented by 920 and 930. The strings, or line data, of the two roadways are merged to form one roadway object. While Boucherat discloses applying different slope corrections to the two paths, Boucherat teaches using one road object 910 to represent the two paths (see at least [0061]).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Pirwani with Boucherat’s technique of considering two paths belonging to an upward and downward path category as one road. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables road network models to correct road model data to smooth intersections, as recognized by Boucherat (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 14, Pirwani, Bauschke, and Boucherat in combination disclose all of the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above, and additionally teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining an endpoint node in the current path for connection to another path; setting the relative elevation of the endpoint node of the path to the relative elevation of the endpoint node of the another path for connection; setting the relative elevation of the endpoint node of the another path for connection to the relative elevation of the endpoint node of the path. See at least [0055], wherein the ending junction nodes are determined for the current path r, and a path r’ that connects to the current path. The two nodes meet at the intersection, and their heights are set to the same maximum height constraint.
Pirwani remains silent on setting the relative elevations when a relative elevation of the endpoint node is less than a relative elevation of an endpoint node of the another path for connection or when a relative elevation of the endpoint node is greater than a relative elevation of an endpoint node of the another path for connection. As discussed above, Pirwani teaches setting the relative elevation of the two endpoint nodes to the same maximum relative elevation. However, Pirwani does not explicitly teach the set elevation being the relative elevation of one of the endpoint nodes.
Boucherat teaches setting the relative elevations when a relative elevation of the endpoint node is less than a relative elevation of an endpoint node of the another path for connection or when a relative elevation of the endpoint node is greater than a relative elevation of an endpoint node of the another path for connection. See at least [0032], [0035], and figures 5A-5C, wherein the relative elevation for the two roads 505 and 515 are set to the top layer of the primary road of the intersection, i.e. the surface with the highest relative elevation in the intersection. The primary road is the road determined to have the correct elevation. In combination with Pirwani’s technique of setting the two endpoint nodes to the same maximum height constraint, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Pirwani with Boucherat’s technique of setting the relative elevations to a relative elevation of one of the two endpoint nodes, based on the relative elevation of the top surface of the two endpoint nodes. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables road network models to correct road model data to smooth intersections, as recognized by Boucherat (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 17, Pirwani, Bauschke, and Boucherat in combination disclose all of the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above, and additionally teaches wherein a node closer to the target node has a more increased relative elevation than the other nodes. See at least [0060]-[0061] and figure 4, function 404. The target node with the largest relative elevation is situated at position x = 0. Nodes closer to the target node, at x = 1-50, have more increased relative elevation than the other nodes, at x = 50-100.
remains silent on wherein the adjusting relative elevations of nodes of the current path further comprises: reducing the relative elevation of the target node with a largest relative elevation in the current path, and increasing relative elevations of the other nodes in the current path.
Bauschke teaches wherein the adjusting relative elevations of nodes of the current path further comprises: reducing the relative elevation of the target node with a largest relative elevation in the current path, and increasing relative elevations of the other nodes in the current path. See at least [0143], [0147], and figures 6A-6C, wherein the elevations of points on the path are modified to the path remains within a maximum slope constraint. The tallest points are reduced in height, and the lowest points are increased in height.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Pirwani with Bauschke’s technique of reducing a relative elevation of a target node with a largest relative elevation in the current path, and increasing relative elevations of other nodes in the current path. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables the automated generation of feasible three-dimensional road networks while satisfying certain constraints, as recognized by Bauschke (see at least [0011]-[0012] and [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 18, Pirwani, Bauschke, and Boucherat in combination disclose all of the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above, and additionally teaches wherein after the constructing a three-dimensional road corresponding to the current path according to the width of the current path and the relative elevations of the nodes of the center line of the current path to obtain a three- dimensional road network, the method further comprises: obtaining a topological connectivity relationship between the plurality of paths; connecting the three-dimensional roads according to the topological connectivity relationship. See at least [0018], [0022]-[0024], [0075], and figure 5, wherein the obtained road network data includes topological connectivity relationships between the road segments, and the three-dimensional polygonal roads are connected based on the road network data.
Pirwani remains silent on traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths; and setting traffic markings at corresponding locations in the three-dimensional road according to the traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths.
Boucherat teaches traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths; and setting traffic markings at corresponding locations in the three-dimensional road according to the traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths. See at least [0045]-[0048] and figure 6, wherein traffic marking attributes including medians, traffic islands, turn lanes, etc. are obtained and inserted into the road model at predefined locations. In combination with Pirwani’s teaching, discussed above, of three-dimensional roads associated with the plurality of paths containing nodes, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Pirwani with Boucherat’s technique of setting traffic markings at corresponding locations in the three-dimensional road according to the traffic marking attributes of the nodes of the plurality of paths. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables road network models to correct road model data to smooth intersections, as recognized by Boucherat (see at least [0042]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/S.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights