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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 26th 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed on April 26th 2023.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on February 16th 2026;
Claims 1-13, 15, 22-26 and 28-31 are canceled
Claims 14, 16-21, 27 and 32-35 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC § 101 are fully considered but do not overcome the rejection. Specifically, applicant claims that the amendments to independent claims are more than a person collecting and finding map data points and routs using different maps but similar to the device defined in independent claim 28 which was canceled by applicant. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As amended, the independent claims require receiving and collecting a data point and getting the coordinates or intersections of each point and labels then address and name of the points on the map. As presented, the recited devices are claimed at a high level and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the amendments presented by the applicant does not overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection, the amended claims are still being directed to an abstract Idea, as the " …determining, in the first device, …determining, in the first device, identifiers of said unique identifiers … determining in a different second device a locally available version of said plurality of different versions …receiving a request, from the different second device for dynamic map data; and providing, from the first device to the second device, …“ limitation of claim 1 can be performed in the human mind. Applicant suggest that the above limitations of receiving the request and providing a different versions of map data from first to second device is done in real-time, though no real-time is claimed and there is no support for “real-time update” in specification. As such, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments, and has maintained the claim rejections under 35 USC § 101 herein.
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are moot. While the Examiner notes that the applicant is arguing the claim limitations recite " …determining, in the first device, …determining, in the first device, identifiers of said unique identifiers …receiving a request, from a different second device, for dynamic map data; and providing, from the first device to the second device, …“. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn; However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claims 14 over Goldman (Patent No. US20200232806A1) in view of Brobst (Patent No. US20120323992A1) and Kitahara (Patent No. US20230204386A1) and claim 27 over Kitahara (Patent No. US20230204386A1) in view of Brobst (Patent No. US20120323992A1) and Goldman (Patent No. US20200232806A1).
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 14, 16-21, 27 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 14:
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 14 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 14 falls within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a data collection and mapping which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 14
A method for determining map data, comprising:
acquiring, in a first device, dynamic map data that is referenced to a geographical location;
determining, in a first device, static map data in a plurality of different versions,
wherein static map data of each version describe a route network in an area of the geographical location,
wherein unique identifiers are assigned to predetermined locations in the static map data; of each of the plurality of different versions;
determining, in the first device, identifiers of said unique identifiers which represent a location of the dynamic map data in each of the plurality of different versions of the static map data;
determining in a different second device a locally available version of said plurality of different versions of said static map data
receiving, from the different second device for dynamic map data relating to the determined locally available version; and
providing, from the first device to the second device, the requested dynamic map data together with corresponding determined identifiers relating to the determined locally available version.
The method in claim 14 includes a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea the limitations of claim 14 highlighted above merely consist of getting the coordinates or intersections of each point (describe a rout networking in an area of the geographical location) and labels like hospital, (identifiers), then address and name of the point on the map (dynamic map data with corresponding identifiers), as well comparing this data point with different available maps, to determine the most accurate version. More specifically, a person can find a points on the map and find the routs using/comparing different maps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
A method for determining map data, comprising:
acquiring, in a first device, dynamic map data that is referenced to a geographical location;
determining, in a first device, static map data in a plurality of different versions,
wherein static map data of each version describe a route network in an area of the geographical location,
wherein unique identifiers are assigned to predetermined locations in the static map data; of each of the plurality of different versions;
determining, in the first device, identifiers of said unique identifiers which represent a location of the dynamic map data in each of the plurality of different versions of the static map data;
determining in a different second device a locally available version of said plurality of different versions of said static map data
receiving, from the different second device for dynamic map data relating to the determined locally available version; and
providing, from the first device to the second device, the requested dynamic map data together with corresponding determined identifiers relating to the determined locally available version.
Claim 14 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an
abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The acquiring geographical location is recited at a high level of generality; such a finding the current geographical location on the map and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of extra solution activity. Receiving dynamic map data, unique identifiers are assigned to predetermined locations, are a processor(s) as discussed above with respect to the claim interpretation. As such, these units merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of judging and determining are performed by a processor. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 14 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Selecting and transmitting data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by processors, such as the device in claim 14.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 14 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not
recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is
clear that claim 14 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 16-21 are further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. As such, claims 14-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Analysis for claim 27:
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 27 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 27 falls within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a data collection and mapping which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 27
A system for determining map data, wherein the system comprises:
a first data memory for dynamic map data which are referenced to a geographical location;
a second data memory for static map data in a plurality of different versions,
wherein static map data of each version describes a route network in the area of the geographical location,
wherein a unique identifier is assigned to predetermined locations in the route network of each of the plurality of different versions of static map data;
a processing device in a first device which is configured;
to determine identifiers of the unique identifiers assigned in said static map data which represent a location of dynamic map data in the static map data of each of the plurality of different versions;
and to receive, from a different second device, an identification of a locally available version of said plurality of different versions locally available at said second device, together with a request for dynamic map data; and
to provide, to the different second device in response to the request for dynamic map data, dynamic map data together with the determined identifiers. Corresponding to the identified locally available version.
The method in claim 27 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea the limitations of claim 27 highlighted above merely consist of finding the points on the map, and determining the geographical position (location) of each point and labels like hospital, (identifiers). More specifically, a person can find a map data points and the location of the points using different maps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
A system for determining map data, wherein the system comprises:
a first data memory for dynamic map data which are referenced to a geographical location;
a second data memory for static map data in a plurality of different versions,
wherein static map data of each version describes a route network in the area of the geographical location,
wherein a unique identifier is assigned to predetermined locations in the route network of each of the plurality of different versions of static map data;
a processing device in a first device which is configured;
to determine identifiers of the unique identifiers assigned in said static map data which represent a location of dynamic map data in the static map data of each of the plurality of different versions;
and to receive, from a different second device, an identification of a locally available version of said plurality of different versions locally available at said second device, together with a request for dynamic map data; and
to provide, to the different second device in response to the request for dynamic map data, dynamic map data together with the determined identifiers. Corresponding to the identified locally available version.
Claim 27 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an
abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The directing limitation is recited at a high level of generality (such as finding a points on the maps) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of extra solution activity. dynamic map data, unique identifiers, memory and processing device, are a processor(s) as discussed above with respect to the claim interpretation. As such, these units merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of judging and determining are performed by a processor. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 27 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Selecting and transmitting data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by processors, such as the device in claim 27.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 27 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not
recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is
clear that claim 27 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 32-35 are further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. As such, claims 27 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman (Patent No. US20200232806A1) in view of Brobst (Patent No. US20120323992A1) and Kitahara (Patent No. US20230204386A1).
Regarding claim 14 Goldman teaches, determining, in a first device, static map data in a plurality of different versions; (See Goldman paragraph 0046; “…the logic, commands, or instructions that implement aspects of the systems and methods described herein may be provided in a computing system including any number of form factors for the computing system such as desktop or notebook personal computers, mobile devices such as tablets, netbooks, and smartphones, client terminals and server-hosted machine instances, and the like…”; Also see Goldman paragraph 0041; “…providing map data to a vehicle includes a static map memory that stores static map data, a map relative pose dependent server that generates submaps from the static map data based on pose and/or route information for the vehicle, sensors that provide environmental data as perception data, an application program interface that generates map requests typically on behalf of an autonomous vehicle stack, and a multiplexer that enables selection of the generated submaps and/or the perception data in response to a map request…”); wherein static map data of each version describe a route network in an area of the geographical location, wherein unique identifiers are assigned to predetermined locations in the static map data; of each of the plurality of different versions; (See Goldman paragraph 0040 and 0092; “…The Static Local Map Task is responsible for taking the lane identifiers and returning the per-driving-lane geometry and metadata (i.e., intersections, speed zones, crosswalks) for both the driving lanes represented by each map ID sequence and the driving lanes that reasonably conflict with that route. The Static Local Map Task creates an abstraction of the local map data as a function of pose and route, pre-caches the map data in “chunks” based on pose and route of the vehicle in a domain independent cache and builds map messages in response to map queries from map consuming processes that may or may not be domain-specific… In the embodiment of FIG. 3, the SLMT 320 is responsible to figure out identifiers for map data and to include those identifiers in map requests. The map builder then stitches the submaps together that are associated with these identifiers. Thus, the map builder's job is to persist and to cache the map data and it is the job of SLMT 320 to figure out what to request. However, the design requirements of FIG. 3 lack separation of responsibilities. The SLMT 320 is also not very good at persisting already generated data. Ideally, the SLMT 320 would not be responsible for the caching of fetched data.”); determining, in a first device, identifiers of said unique identifiers which represent a location of the dynamic map data in each of the plurality of different versions of the static map data; (See Goldman paragraph 0092-0093; “In the embodiment of FIG. 3, the SLMT 320 is responsible to figure out identifiers for map data and to include those identifiers in map requests. The map builder then stitches the submaps together that are associated with these identifiers. Thus, the map builder's job is to persist and to cache the map data and it is the job of SLMT 320 to figure out what to request. However, the design requirements of FIG. 3 lack separation of responsibilities. The SLMT 320 is also not very good at persisting already generated data. Ideally, the SLMT 320 would not be responsible for the caching of fetched data.
In the embodiment of FIG. 3, the static local map may be injected directly into the prediction stack 314 and the motion planning stack 316. Motion planning stack 316 cannot accept new routes if the local map was not built with awareness of the new route. The prediction stack 314 listens to the local map and transforms it into the AV's continuous reference frame on every cycle. In both cases, the map access uses valid map relative pose.”); determining in a different second device a locally available version of said plurality of different versions of said static map data; (See Goldman paragraph 0096 and 0097; “…an onboard system and method whose sole tasks are to generate the local map data representation and to cache the results across map consumer requests. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, the system of FIG. 3 is modified to include a data source abstraction including the static map data 400 and a map partition server 410 that provides submaps 420 to the SLMT 320 and OCS 430 as a response to a map request. As will be explained in more detail below, a pre-fetcher task interacts with the map partition server 410 by requesting data via an identifier-based or spatial-indexing request mechanism such as… The map partition server 410 provides the functionality of the map builder defined above and is responsible for intelligently caching the local map data representation that is associated with each partition or submap, as well as with other partitions or submaps in the same spatial region of the map. Pose is used to determine the relevance of the partitions (submaps) to onboard consumers of the map data…”).
Goldman dos not teach but Brobst teaches, a method for determining map data, comprising: acquiring, in a first device, dynamic map data that is referenced to a geographical location; (See Brobst paragraph 0033 and 0052; “…For example, a user could request a map by specifying a street address, street name, intersection, landmark, business name or using other geographic references. In response, the GIS server 105 could retrieve a set of static map data to return to the client 130 in response to the request. For example, the static map data 115 could provide image tiles of pre-rendered map images or satellite images at different zoom levels…FIG. 5 illustrates a method 500 for a client to render GIS data, according to one embodiment of the invention. As shown, the method 500 begins at step 505, where a client device receives a collection of static map data including a plurality of data elements to be rendered. And at step 510, the client device receives a collection of dynamic data which indicates a dynamic state associated with one or more of the data elements in the map to be rendered…”).
Both Goldman and Brobst are in the same field of static and dynamic map data. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Goldman static map data in a plurality of different versions with Brobst map data that is referenced to a geographical location. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Brobst by including map data that is referenced to a geographical location. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Goldman dos not teach but Kitahara teaches, receiving, from the different second device for dynamic map data relating to the determined locally available version; and providing, from the first device to the second device, the requested dynamic map data together with corresponding determined identifiers relating to the determined locally available version; (See Kitahara paragraph0061, 0141 and 0142; “The map server 3 has full map data corresponding to the entire map recording area. However, all map data is divided into multiple patches and managed and distributed. Each patch corresponds to map data for different areas. For example, the map server 3 manages the entire map recording area in units of rectangular map tiles each having a side length of about 100 m to 300 m. Map tiles correspond to the subordinate concept of the patch described above. Each map tile is provided with information indicating a real-world region to which the map tile corresponds. Information indicating a real-world region is represented by, for example, latitude, longitude, and altitude. Each map tile is given a unique tile ID. The map data for each patch or each map tile is part of the entire map recording area, in other words, local map data. A map tile corresponds to partial map data. The map server 3 can distribute partial map data corresponding to the position of the vehicle control system 1 based on a request from the vehicle control system 1.…The report processing unit F9 transmits the probe data as described above to the map server 3 in cooperation with the V2X in-vehicle device 14. The generation and transmission of probe data by the report processing unit F9 is performed spontaneously or based on an instruction from the map server 3.
The probe data may include vehicle behavior information such as the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, blinker operation information, wiper operation information and the like. Further, when an obstacle such as a fallen object or a parked vehicle is being detected, the report processing unit F9 may upload probe data including the observed position of the obstacle. According to such a configuration, the map server 3 can update the status of existence, such as occurrence or disappearance, of dynamic map elements included in the dynamic POI layer L4 based on the reports from the vehicles.”).
Both Goldman and Kitahara are in the same field of static and dynamic map data. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Goldman static map data in a plurality of different versions with Kitahara providing, from the first device to the second device, the dynamic map data together with corresponding determined identifiers. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Goldman by including providing, from the first device to the second device, the dynamic map data together with corresponding determined identifiers to better connect the static and dynamic data on the device. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16 Goldman in view of Brobst and Kitahara teaches the method as claimed in claim 14, Goldman further teaches the request includes information identifying the locally available version of the static map data; (See Goldman paragraph 0040; “…The Static Local Map Task creates an abstraction of the local map data as a function of pose and route, pre-caches the map data in “chunks” based on pose and route of the vehicle in a domain independent cache and builds map messages in response to map queries from map consuming processes that may or may not be domain-specific...”).
Regarding claim 17 Goldman in view of Brobst and Kitahara teaches the method as claimed in claim 14, Goldman further teaches, wherein when the locally available version is not included in the plurality of different versions of the determined static map data; (See Goldman paragraph 0167-0168; “FIGS. 19A-19B together illustrate an alternative embodiment in the map requesting function is broken into map build and map retrieve functions. As illustrated, a large radius map requester 1900 requests a large radius map centered around the vehicle 200. The requested map data is converted into lane graphs by the map builder 1808 as described above. An asynchronous feedback loop is provided that includes: (1) large radius map requester 1900 makes a pose based request; (2) the map builder 1808 generates data for request from (1); (3) the autonomy radius map requester 1902 makes another request for a radius smaller than that in (1); and (4) the map builder 1808 processes the request from (3). This pattern of having multiple radii is something that can be extended to as many radii as needed. In order to determine how far the AV has traveled from the point of a request, map relative locations are used since pose drift is continuous. This means that a transform graph is needed and the only way to get a transform graph is through the bigger blob of map data. To get this data, the large radius map requester 1900 listens to its own response (asynchronously) and the autonomy radius map requester 1902 listens to the large radius response as well.
On the output side of the map builder 1808, an autonomy radius map requester 1902 listens to the map data output by the map builder 1808 to allow its transforms inside the map to determine when to re-request the map data. A map data request 1904 is sent to a submap server 1906, which is the portion of the map builder 1808 that handles requests. In this embodiment, the submap server 1906 handles the map requests separately from the map building function and is thus shown as a separate block. The submaps are provided to the autonomy stack 310 in response to a map request via the multiplexer 330 in the same manner as described above with respect to the embodiment of 18A-18B.
Goldman does not teach but Kitahara teaches, and the requested dynamic map data is provided together with identifiers which are determined in relation to a next-oldest version of the plurality of different versions of static map data(See Kitahara paragraph 0037 and 0061; “…a map data structure for achieving the above object is a structure for distributing map from the map server as map data of a map used by a processor that performs a predetermined vehicle control for supporting the user's driving operation or for autonomously driving the vehicle, and the map data structure has: a first data field in which position information is inserted for a difficult place, which is a point on the map where it is difficult to perform vehicle control while maintaining a certain level of performance; and a second data field in which information about map elements used by the processor to generate a control plan at the difficult place is inserted…The map server 3 has full map data corresponding to the entire map recording area. However, all map data is divided into multiple patches and managed and distributed. Each patch corresponds to map data for different areas. For example, the map server 3 manages the entire map recording area in units of rectangular map tiles each having a side length of about 100 m to 300 m. Map tiles correspond to the subordinate concept of the patch described above. Each map tile is provided with information indicating a real-world region to which the map tile corresponds. Information indicating a real-world region is represented by, for example, latitude, longitude, and altitude. Each map tile is given a unique tile ID. The map data for each patch or each map tile is part of the entire map recording area, in other words, local map data. A map tile corresponds to partial map data. The map server 3 can distribute partial map data corresponding to the position of the vehicle control system 1 based on a request from the vehicle control system 1.”).
Both Goldman and Kitahara are in the same field of static and dynamic map data. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Goldman static map data in a plurality of different versions with Kitahara providing, from the first device to the second device, the dynamic map data together with corresponding determined identifiers. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Goldman by including providing, from the first device to the second device, the dynamic map data together with corresponding determined identifiers to better connect the static and dynamic data on the device. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 27 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara (Patent No. US20230204386A1) in view of Brobst (Patent No. US20120323992A1) and Goldman (Patent No. US20200232806A1).
Regarding claim 27 Kitahara teaches, a processing device in a first device which is configured; to determine identifiers of the unique identifiers assigned in said static map data which represent a location of dynamic map data in the static map data of each of the plurality of different versions; (See Kitahara paragraph 0037 and 0061; “…a map data structure for achieving the above object is a structure for distributing map from the map server as map data of a map used by a processor that performs a predetermined vehicle control for supporting the user's driving operation or for autonomously driving the vehicle, and the map data structure has: a first data field in which position information is inserted for a difficult place, which is a point on the map where it is difficult to perform vehicle control while maintaining a certain level of performance; and a second data field in which information about map elements used by the processor to generate a control plan at the difficult place is inserted…The map server 3 has full map data corresponding to the entire map recording area. However, all map data is divided into multiple patches and managed and distributed. Each patch corresponds to map data for different areas. For example, the map server 3 manages the entire map recording area in units of rectangular map tiles each having a side length of about 100 m to 300 m. Map tiles correspond to the subordinate concept of the patch described above. Each map tile is provided with information indicating a real-world region to which the map tile corresponds. Information indicating a real-world region is represented by, for example, latitude, longitude, and altitude. Each map tile is given a unique tile ID. The map data for each patch or each map tile is part of the entire map recording area, in other words, local map data. A map tile corresponds to partial map data. The map server 3 can distribute partial map data corresponding to the position of the vehicle control system 1 based on a request from the vehicle control system 1.”);
and to receive, from a different second device, an identification of a locally available version of said plurality of different versions locally available at said second device, together with a request for dynamic map data; and; (See Kitahara paragraph0061, 0141 and 0142; “The map server 3 has full map data corresponding to the entire map recording area. However, all map data is divided into multiple patches and managed and distributed. Each patch corresponds to map data for different areas. For example, the map server 3 manages the entire map recording area in units of rectangular map tiles each having a side length of about 100 m to 300 m. Map tiles correspond to the subordinate concept of the patch described above. Each map tile is provided with information indicating a real-world region to which the map tile corresponds. Information indicating a real-world region is represented by, for example, latitude, longitude, and altitude. Each map tile is given a unique tile ID. The map data for each patch or each map tile is part of the entire map recording area, in other words, local map data. A map tile corresponds to partial map data. The map server 3 can distribute partial map data corresponding to the position of the vehicle control system 1 based on a request from the vehicle control system 1.…The report processing unit F9 transmits the probe data as described above to the map server 3 in cooperation with the V2X in-vehicle device 14. The generation and transmission of probe data by the report processing unit F9 is performed spontaneously or based on an instruction from the map server 3.
The probe data may include vehicle behavior information such as the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, blinker operation information, wiper operation information and the like. Further, when an obstacle such as a fallen object or a parked vehicle is being detected, the report processing unit F9 may upload probe data including the observed position of the obstacle. According to such a configuration, the map server 3 can update the status of existence, such as occurrence or disappearance, of dynamic map elements included in the dynamic POI layer L4 based on the reports from the vehicles.”);
to provide, to the different second device in response to the request for dynamic map data, dynamic map data together with the determined identifiers. Corresponding to the identified locally available version; (See Kitahara paragraph0061, 0141 and 0142; “The map server 3 has full map data corresponding to the entire map recording area. However, all map data is divided into multiple patches and managed and distributed. Each patch corresponds to map data for different areas. For example, the map server 3 manages the entire map recording area in units of rectangular map tiles each having a side length of about 100 m to 300 m. Map tiles correspond to the subordinate concept of the patch described above. Each map tile is provided with information indicating a real-world region to which the map tile corresponds. Information indicating a real-world region is represented by, for example, latitude, longitude, and altitude. Each map tile is given a unique tile ID. The map data for each patch or each map tile is part of the entire map recording area, in other words, local map data. A map tile corresponds to partial map data. The map server 3 can distribute partial map data corresponding to the position of the vehicle control system 1 based on a request from the vehicle control system 1.…The report processing unit F9 transmits the probe data as described above to the map server 3 in cooperation with the V2X in-vehicle device 14. The generation and transmission of probe data by the report processing unit F9 is performed spontaneously or based on an instruction from the map server 3.
The probe data may include vehicle behavior information such as the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, blinker operation information, wiper operation information and the like. Further, when an obstacle such as a fallen object or a parked vehicle is being detected, the report processing unit F9 may upload probe data including the observed position of the obstacle. According to such a configuration, the map server 3 can update the status of existence, such as occurrence or disappearance, of dynamic map elements included in the dynamic POI layer L4 based on the reports from the vehicles.”).
Kitahara does not teach but Brobst teaches, a system for determining map data, wherein the system comprises: a first data memory for dynamic map data which are referenced to a geographical location; (See Brobst paragraph 0037 and 0038; “The map data sent to the client for rendering may be formatted using a variety of formats. For example, map data may be formatted using open standards such as GeoJSON or Keyhole Markup Language (KML). As is known, GeoJSON provides GeoJSON is a format for encoding a variety of geographic data structures. Features in GeoJSON contain a geometry object and additional properties, and a feature collection represents a list of features. Similarly, KML is an XML notation for expressing geographic annotation and visualization within Internet-based, two-dimensional maps and three-dimensional Earth browsers. Of course, other formats understood by the client computing system 135 could be used as well.FIG. 2 illustrates an example the GIS server 105 configured to send map data to requesting clients, according to one embodiment of the invention. As shown, the GIS server 105 includes, without limitation, a central processing unit (CPU) 205, a network interface 215, an interconnect 220, a memory 225 and storage 230. The GIS server 105 may also include an I/O device interface 210 connecting I/O devices 212 (e.g., keyboard, display and mouse devices) to the GIS server 105.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
786
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Both Kitahara and Brobst are in the same field of static and dynamic map data. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Kitahara providing, from the first device to the second device, the dynamic map data together with corresponding determined identifiers with Brobst map data which are referenced to a geographical location. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Kitahara by including map data which are referenced to a geographical location to better define the geographical location on the maps. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Kitahara does not teach but Goldman teaches, a second data memory for static map data in a plurality of different versions, wherein static map data of each version describes a route network in the area of the geographical location; (See Goldman paragraph 0040 and 0092; “…The Static Local Map Task is responsible for taking the lane identifiers and returning the per-driving-lane geometry and metadata (i.e., intersections, speed zones, crosswalks) for both the driving lanes represented by each map ID sequence and the driving lanes that reasonably conflict with that route. The Static Local Map Task creates an abstraction of the local map data as a function of pose and route, pre-caches the map data in “chunks” based on pose and route of the vehicle in a domain independent cache and builds map messages in response to map queries from map consuming processes that may or may not be domain-specific… In the embodiment of FIG. 3, the SLMT 320 is responsible to figure out identifiers for map data and to include those identifiers in map requests. The map builder then stitches the submaps together that are associated with these identifiers. Thus, the map builder's job is to persist and to cache the map data and it is the job of SLMT 320 to figure out what to request. However, the design requirements of FIG. 3 lack separation of responsibilities. The SLMT 320 is also not very good at persisting already generated data. Ideally, the SLMT 320 would not be responsible for the caching of fetched data.”); wherein a unique identifier is assigned in each case to predetermined locations in the route network of each of the plurality of different versions of static map data; (See Goldman paragraph 0092-0093; “In the embodiment of FIG. 3, the SLMT 320 is responsible to figure out identifiers for map data and to include those identifiers in map requests. The map builder then stitches the submaps together that are associated with these identifiers. Thus, the map builder's job is to persist and to cache the map data and it is the job of SLMT 320 to figure out what to request. However, the design requirements of FIG. 3 lack separation of responsibilities. The SLMT 320 is also not very good at persisting already generated data. Ideally, the SLMT 320 would not be responsible for the caching of fetched data.
In the embodiment of FIG. 3, the static local map may be injected directly into the prediction stack 314 and the motion planning stack 316. Motion planning stack 316 cannot accept new routes if the local map was not built with awareness of the new route. The prediction stack 314 listens to the local map and transforms it into the AV's continuous reference frame on every cycle. In both cases, the map access uses valid map relative pose.”);
Both Kitahara and Goldman are in the same field of static and dynamic map data. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Kitahara providing, from the first device to the second device, the dynamic map data together with corresponding determined identifiers with Goldman plurality of different versions of static map data. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Kitahara by including plurality of different versions of static map data to for more detailed information for map data points. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 32 Kitahara in view of Brobst and Goldmen teaches the system of claim 27, Kitahara further teaches, wherein the different second device is a vehicle; (See Kitahara paragraph 0076; “The V2X in-vehicle device 14 is a device for performing wireless communication between the subject vehicle and other devices…”).
Regarding claim 33 Kitahara in view of Brobst and Goldmen teaches the system of claim 27, Kitahara further teaches, wherein said different second device includes a second processing device configured to integrate the dynamic map data with the static map data; (See Kitahara paragraph 0038; “…the processor provided in the vehicle plans the vehicle control using map information for performing the vehicle control in difficult places stored in the second field. As a configuration of the map data, a data field for storing the information of the points that are not the difficult place is an optional element, thereby such a data field is omissible. Therefore, it is possible to reduce the cost of sending and receiving map data while reducing the possibility of cancellation of the vehicle control.”).
Regarding claim 34 Kitahara in view of Brobst and Goldmen teaches the system of claim 33, Kitahara further teaches, wherein: said processor of said first device is configured to determine a version of said static map data; and said second processor of said second device is configured to request, from said first device, dynamic map data relating to the determined version of said static map data; (See Kitahara paragraph 0055 and 0076; “The static POI data held in the static POI layer L3 is data regarding static map elements other than the above. A static map element here refers to a feature that is required to be updated within one week or so, for example. In other words, a static map element refers to a map element whose position or state of existence does not change at least for several minutes to several hours. The static POI data includes location information such as toll gates, tunnels, branch points for exiting from a expressway main line, and merging points. In addition, map elements such as a curve start position where a curve section starts, a lane change start position for exiting from the main line to a deceleration lane, and a lane change start position for merging from an acceleration lane to the main line may also be included in the map elements serving as the static POIs. Each static POI data includes type and location information. Static POI data can be, for example, data about static map elements that are not included in detection targets of the surrounding monitoring sensor 11, which will be described later…The V2X in-vehicle device 14 is a device for performing wireless communication between the subject vehicle and other devices. The V2X in-vehicle device 14 includes a wide area communication unit and a short range communication unit as communication modules. The wide area communication unit is a communication module for performing wireless communication compliant with a predetermined wide area wireless communication standard…”).
Regarding claim 35 Kitahara in view of Brobst and Goldmen teaches the system of claim 27, Kitahara does not teach but Brobst teaches, further comprising a network interconnecting said first device and said second device; (See Brobst paragraph 0044; “…the client computing system 130 includes, without limitation, a central processing unit (CPU) 305, a network interface 315, an interconnect 320, a memory 325 and storage 330. The computing system 130 1 may also include an I/O devices interface 310 connecting I/O”).
Both Kitahara and Brobst are in the same field of static and dynamic map data. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Kitahara providing, from the first device to the second device, the dynamic map data together with corresponding determined identifiers with Brobst network interconnecting devices. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Kitahara by including network interconnecting devices for better data transferring/shearing. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brobst (Patent No. US20120323992A1) in view of Kitahara (Patent No. US20230204386A1) and Lear (Patent No. US20200363225A1).
Regarding claim 18 Brobst in view of Kitahara teaches teaches the method as claimed in claim 14, Brobst does not explicitly teach but Lear teaches where the step of providing the requested dynamic map data includes providing identifiers determined in relation to more than one of the plurality of different versions of the static map data; (See Lear paragraph 0039; “…With respect to the example shown in FIG. 1C, if the subscriber prefers the updated route using the new road shown in the updated map data, and the subscriber may submit a verification of the shift in POI using the shift report. If the subscriber prefers the prior route shown by the prior map data (e.g., due to easier access to a loading dock), the subscriber may submit a request to modify the POI and/or the routing information of the updated map data (e.g., to revert to the routing information shown in the former map data) using the shift report.”).
Both Brobst and Lear are in the same field of static and dynamic map data. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Brobst determining map data with Lear request for different versions of dynamic map data with identifiers. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Brobst by including different map data for more data points. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 19 Brobst in view of Kitahara teaches teaches the method as claimed in claim 18, Brobst further teaches wherein the request relates to dynamic map data which correspond to locations within a predetermined geographical area; (See Brobst paragraph 0033; “…the network 120 to request (and update) map data (i.e., elements of static map data 115 and dynamic map data 120) to render on a display. In one embodiment, the browser 135 may be configured to request map data for a specified area. For example, a user could request a map by specifying a street address, street name, intersection, landmark, business name or using other geographic references…”).
Regarding claim 20 Brobst in view of Kitahara teaches teaches the method as claimed in claim 14, Brobst does not explicitly teach but Lear teaches wherein a new version of static map data is acquired, and identifiers for existing dynamic map data are determined in relation to the new version of the static map data; (See Lear paragraph 0016; “…he map data and/or the updated map data may include an index associating one or more physical addresses with one or more corresponding sets of geographical coordinates. In some implementations, the map data may include data relating to a current map version and/or a prior map version. In some implementations, the updated map data may include a revised version of the map data that accounts for a change in an attribute within the index since the release of the map data (e.g., a change in road geometry, a change in a road name, a change in a structure, a change in a physical address, a change in a road restriction, and/or the like) …”).
Both Brobst and Lear are in the same field of static and dynamic map data. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Brobst determining map data with Lear different versions of map data. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Brobst by including different static map data for more data points. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 21 Brobst in view of Kitahara teaches teaches the metdod of claim 20, Brobst does not explicitly teach but Lear teaches, wherein the new version of the static map data and a prior version of the static map data are stored in at least one memory; (See Lear paragraph 0016; “… FIG. 1A, and by reference number 120, the shift detection platform may receive map data and updated map data from the map storage device. The map data and/or the updated map data may include an index associating one or more physical addresses with one or more corresponding sets of geographical coordinates. In some implementations, the map data may include data relating to a current map version and/or a prior map version…”).
Both Brobst and Lear are in the same field of static and dynamic map data. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Brobst determining map data with Lear memory to store different versions of map data. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Brobst by including memory to store different versions of map data. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LIDIA KWIATKOWSKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666