DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/4/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 6/2/2023 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims.
Claims 1, 7, and 15 have been amended.
This Non-FINAL Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 12/4/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/4/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the Claim 1-7 rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the Claim 1-7 rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the Non-FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
However, since the Office is using the same cited prior art, the Office will address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks “the cited references do not appear to describe the filtering out of combinations of directions in the manners recited by amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, the new amendments were not presented during the previous interview, rather concepts of removing not allowed exits was. This aspect of removing not allowed combinations was attempted to be captured in the current amendments, however when the Office looked into the specification for support and understanding, it appears this “filtering” is comparing merely comparing templates and choosing the correct template for the intersection, thus any type of comparing templates/patterns would in fact, remove not allowed exits, as the claims require. The Office cited prior art McCarthy, ¶ 0117, 0198-0205, 0222, 0231 with Figure 19 (As each intersection is processed, some embodiments store a template pattern for that intersection. When additional intersections with the template pattern are identified, such embodiments store a reference to that pattern (while still creating a separate data structure, as the location information is different for two intersections that follow the same pattern). Therefore, based on applicants specification and the how patterns are being compared in the cited prior art, McCarthy teaches this very step with the same outcome. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims no longer contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0167582) in view of McCarthy et al. (United States Patent Publication 2013/0325339) and in view of Raghu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0176358).
With respect to Claims 1-2: While Chen discloses “A method comprising:
“performing one or more control operations that cause a machine to perform one or more maneuvers based at least on map data of an area” [Chen, ¶ 0002, and 0070-0072 (accurate traffic information, such as for use in a navigation system (and, in particular, for an autonomous vehicle) and (the navigation device in the vehicle or another computer system in communication with the navigation device may include instructions for routing the vehicle or generate driving commands for steering the vehicle, shifting gears, increasing and decreasing the throttle, and braking based on the reported data)];
“wherein the map data is updated at least by: determining one or more constraints corresponding to vehicular movement between traffic lanes within an intersection” [Chen, ¶ 0002, and 0070-0072 (following determination of the total lane count, lane number, lane width, and/or lane connectivity, the results may be stored or published within the map developer database)];
“based at least on map data corresponding to the intersection” [Chen, ¶ 0002, and 0070-0072];
“calculating lane connectivity for the intersection based at least on one or more constraints” [Chen, ¶ 0070 (Based on a clustering of data from a plurality of vehicle inputs and projected paths, lane connectivity is determined through the intersection)];
“the lane connectivity indicating one or more first lanes of the traffic lanes that may possibly be used for egress from the intersection in response to ingress into the intersection from a second lane of the traffic lanes” [Chen, ¶ 0002, and 0070-0072 (Based on a clustering of data from a plurality of vehicle inputs and projected paths, lane connectivity is determined through the intersection)];
“and adding the lane connectivity to at least a subset of the map data corresponding to the intersection” [Chen, ¶ 0002, and 0070-0072 (following determination of the total lane count, lane number, lane width, and/or lane connectivity, the results may be stored or published within the map developer database)];
Chen does not specifically state what that the system is used for intersections with a camera, as the camera appears to be used for the road markings.
McCarthy, which is also a lane connectivity system teaches “wherein the map data is updated at least by: determining one or more constraints corresponding to vehicular movement between traffic lanes within an intersection” [McCarthy, ¶ 0117, 0178, 0198-0205, 0222 with Figure 19 (FIG. 19 conceptually illustrates a process 1900 for linking together several junctions into a single intersection and identifying the branches of the intersection)];
“at which two or more of the traffic lanes corresponding to different directions of travel intersect each other, the determining of the one or more constraints being based at least on semantic information included in map data corresponding to the intersection” [McCarthy, ¶ 0117, 0198-0205, 0222, 0231 with Figure 19 (the process 600 establishes (at 630) relationships between roads and road segments. In some embodiments, establishing relationships includes identifying semantic data, such as opposite sides of dual carriageway, and defining links between the related roads. In some embodiments, the process identifies roads containing road segments with the same or similar names (e.g., "1-5 N" and "1-5 S"), that are marked as dual carriageways (i.e., in a form of way field), and that are within a threshold distance of each other and a threshold angle of being parallel. FIG. 11 illustrates two road segments 1105 and 1110 that are a distance X apart, run parallel in opposite directions, and are both named "Main St." Assuming that the distance X is less than the threshold distance for roads with the same name, then these roads will be linked as associated dual carriageways, and turns between the roads can be classified as U-turns rather than separate left turns. Additional semantic data that may be propagated includes assigning names to connector/slip roads (e.g., freeway entrances, freeway interchanges, right turn slip roads, etc.)];
“identifying, for individual lanes corresponding to the intersection and based at least on the semantic information, respective combinations of ingress and egress directions corresponding to the individual lanes and other lanes corresponding to the intersection” [McCarthy, ¶ 0117, 0198-0205, 0222 with Figures 18-19 (Group together pairs of consecutive roundabout exit/entry segments that represent same road; [0226] Assign an angle to each pair and each unpaired segment; [0227] Subtract the smallest angle from all angles (so smallest angle=0); [0228] Construct a template intersection pattern with one branch for each angle; [0229] If pattern exists for previously generated intersection, use existing pattern to save space (refer intersection to existing pattern); [0230] Else if pattern does not exist, create and store new entry for pattern)];
“filtering out combinations of ingress and egress directions that are identified as inconsistent with the one or more constraints as determined from the semantic information” [McCarthy, ¶ 0117, 0198-0205, 0222, 0231 with Figure 19 (As each intersection is processed, some embodiments store a template pattern for that intersection. When additional intersections with the template pattern are identified, such embodiments store a reference to that pattern (while still creating a separate data structure, as the location information is different for two intersections that follow the same pattern)];
“calculating lane connectivity for the intersection based at least on the combinations remaining after the filtering, the lane connectivity indicating one or more first lanes of the traffic lanes that are suitable for egress from the intersection in response to ingress into the intersection from a second lane of the traffic lanes” [McCarthy, ¶ 0117, 0198-0205, 0222, 0231 with Figure 19 (As each intersection is processed, some embodiments store a template pattern for that intersection. When additional intersections with the template pattern are identified, such embodiments store a reference to that pattern (while still creating a separate data structure, as the location information is different for two intersections that follow the same pattern)];
“wherein the semantic information used to determine the one or more constraints further includes one or more of: a respective type of one or more of the traffic lanes within the intersection; a respective direction of travel of one or more of the traffic lanes within the intersection; a respective right of way corresponding to one or more of the traffic lanes within the intersection; one or more traffic lights corresponding to the intersection; one or more traffic signs corresponding to the intersection; one or more traffic rules corresponding to the intersection; one or more physical obstacles corresponding to the intersection; or one or more traffic laws corresponding to the intersection” [McCarthy, ¶ 0117 (the process 600 establishes (at 630) relationships between roads and road segments. In some embodiments, establishing relationships includes identifying semantic data, such as opposite sides of dual carriageway, and defining links between the related roads. In some embodiments, the process identifies roads containing road segments with the same or similar names (e.g., "1-5 N" and "1-5 S"), that are marked as dual carriageways (i.e., in a form of way field), and that are within a threshold distance of each other and a threshold angle of being parallel. FIG. 11 illustrates two road segments 1105 and 1110 that are a distance X apart, run parallel in opposite directions, and are both named "Main St." Assuming that the distance X is less than the threshold distance for roads with the same name, then these roads will be linked as associated dual carriageways, and turns between the roads can be classified as U-turns rather than separate left turns. Additional semantic data that may be propagated includes assigning names to connector/slip roads (e.g., freeway entrances, freeway interchanges, right turn slip roads, etc.)].
Office Note: The claims state the term filtering and when the Office looked into the specification, for support as to what was actually being carried out, the specification states " In some embodiments, the action 3503 may include accessing predefined lane connectivity templates that can apply to the intersection with the predefined lane connectivity templates configured to prevent invalid combinations of lane directions, filtering the predefined lane connectivity templates to eliminate predefined lane connectivity templates that are inconsistent with the constraints on the lanes at the intersection” [Specification, ¶ 00222]. Therefore, based on the specification, using patterns/templates of known intersections, and comparing them and only choosing the ones that match would read on filtering out combinations and these limitations will be interpreted as such moving forward.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of McCarthy into the invention of Chen to not only include using sensor (camera) and map data for lane connectivity determination and sign recognition as Chen discloses but also use sensors for semantic data capturing for road constraints determination as taught by McCarthy with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art McCarthy into Chen to create a more robust system that not only uses map data for lane determination but sensor data for semantic constraints and establishing road relationships [McCarthy, ¶ 0117]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such a mapping intersections for lane connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Raghu which is also a lane connectivity system at intersections that uses a camera teaches “wherein at least a portion of the semantic information used to determine the one or more constraints includes road marking information about one or more road markings corresponding to the intersection in which the road marking information is at least partially derived from one or more camera images” [Raghu, Abstract, ¶ 0019, 0038 and Figure 5c (that the lane identification system has detected a transition in lane markings on the right side of the vehicle from high frequency lane markings to solid lane markings, and has also detected an exit sign including text and two arrows on the exit sign, which confirm that the neighboring right lane is an exit-only lane and the presently occupied lane of the vehicle is a shared exit lane)];
“wherein the map data is updated at least by: determining one or more constraints corresponding to vehicular movement between traffic lanes within an intersection” [Raghu, Abstract, ¶ 0019, 0038, 0058 and Figure 5c (a vehicle (e.g., 110) that includes lane identification system 200 may also have communications that allow the vehicle to communicate and receive updated lane marking data and sign data to allow or assist the vehicle to detect and identify signs and lane markings. For example, in an illustrative embodiment, the vehicle's 110 navigation system 206 may transmit a current GPS coordinate that may indicate that the vehicle 110 is entering another state or country. As different geographic regions may have differences and/or variances in lane markings and sign graphics, the communications of the vehicle may receive from a remote server over a network, updated lane marking and sign data that may be stored in one or more vehicle databases (e.g., 213, 219) for subsequent lane marking and sign data detection)];
and “based at least on semantic information included in camera data corresponding to the intersection” [Raghu, Abstract, ¶ 0019, 0038, 0058-0059 and Figure 5c (the cameras may be mounted elsewhere on front hood of vehicle 110, on sides of vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Raghu into the invention of Chen to not only include using sensors and cameras to determine lane connectivity and road markings as Chen discloses but also use cameras for semantic data capturing for road constraints with cameras at intersections as taught by Raghu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Raghu into Chen to create a more robust system (camera and map data) that not only uses map data for lane determination but camera data for semantic constraints and establishing road relationships in intersections [Raghu,¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such a mapping intersections for lane connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 3: Chen discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more constraints are identified from the map data for the calculating of the lane connectivity” [Chen, ¶ 0030, 0033, 0061, 0070-0071, and 0075].
With respect to Claims 8-9: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claim 1-2. The apparatus taught/disclosed in Claims 8-9 can clearly perform the method of Claims 1-2. Therefore Claims 8-9 are rejected under the same rationale.
Office Note: The claims state the term filtering and when the Office looked into the specification, for support as to what was actually being carried out, the specification states " In some embodiments, the action 3503 may include accessing predefined lane connectivity templates that can apply to the intersection with the predefined lane connectivity templates configured to prevent invalid combinations of lane directions, filtering the predefined lane connectivity templates to eliminate predefined lane connectivity templates that are inconsistent with the constraints on the lanes at the intersection” [Specification, ¶ 00222]. Therefore, based on the specification, using patterns/templates of known intersections, and comparing them and only choosing the ones that match would read on filtering out combinations and these limitations will be interpreted as such moving forward.
With respect to Claim 10: While Chen discloses “The processor of claim 8, wherein the lane connectivity is used to generate a lane connectivity map” [Chen, ¶ 0030, 0033, 0041,0050, 0061, 0070-0071, and 0075];
Chen does not specifically state that there is a “template/model” being used before for other intersection.
McCarthy, which is also a lane connectivity system teaches “wherein the lane connectivity is used to generate a lane connectivity template that is used for determining other lane connections associated with other intersections.” [McCarthy, Abstract, ¶ 0198-0205, 0222 with Figure 19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of McCarthy into the invention of Chen to not only include using sensor and map data for lane connectivity determination as Chen discloses but to also use calculated intersections as templates for other intersections as taught by McCarthy with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art McCarthy into Chen to create a more robust system that not only uses maps and sensor data for lane connectivity but also saves templates for use in other intersections thus saving time and space [McCarthy, ¶ 0205]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such a mapping intersections for lane connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 12-14: While Chen discloses “The processor of claim 8, wherein the calculating of the lane connectivity is further based at least on one or more lane connectivity maps” [Chen, ¶ 0030, 0033, 0041,0050, 0061, 0070-0071, and 0075];
Chen does not specifically state that there is a “template/model” being used.
McCarthy, which is also a lane connectivity system teaches “wherein the calculating of the lane connectivity is further based at least on one or more lane connectivity templates” [McCarthy, Abstract, ¶ 0198-0205, 0222 with Figure 19];
“determined based at least on map data corresponding to one or more other intersections” [McCarthy, Abstract, ¶ 0198-0205, 0222 with Figure 19];
“wherein the one or more lane connectivity templates are filtered base at least on consistency of the one or more lane connectivity templates with respect to the one or more constraints” [McCarthy, Abstract, ¶ 0198-0205, 0222 with Figure 19];
“wherein at least one of the one or more lane connectivity templates is restricts invalid combinations of lane directions for ingress and egress between lanes” [McCarthy, Abstract, ¶ 0198-0205, 0222 with Figure 19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of McCarthy into the invention of Chen to not only include using sensor and map data for lane connectivity determination as Chen discloses but to also use calculated intersections as templates for other intersections as taught by McCarthy with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art McCarthy into Chen to create a more robust system that not only uses maps and sensor data for lane connectivity but also saves templates for use in other intersections thus saving time and space [McCarthy, ¶ 0205]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such a mapping intersections for lane connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0167582) in view of McCarthy et al. (United States Patent Publication 2013/0325339) in view of Raghu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0176358), and in further view of Kamata et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0371338).
With respect to Claim 4: While Chen discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the lane connectivity is added to the map data based at least on the lane connectivity is an actual lane connectivity for the intersection” [Chen, ¶ 0030, 0033, 0041,0050, 0061, 0070-0071, and 0075];
Chen does not specifically state that there is a user confirmation of data.
Kamata, which is also a mapping system based on data teaches “based at least on a confirmation corresponding to user input” [Kamata, ¶ 0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kamata into the invention of Chen to not only include using sensor and map data for updating lane connectivity as Chen discloses but to also request user input for approving data changes as taught by Kamata with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Kamata into Chen to create a more robust system that not only uses maps and sensor data for lane connectivity updating but also requires user approval for updates to map data, thus removing outliers. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such a updating data in map databases for lane connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 11: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claim 4. The apparatus taught/disclosed in Claim 11 can clearly perform the method of Claim 4. Therefore Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0167582) in view of McCarthy et al. (United States Patent Publication 2013/0325339), in view of Raghu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0176358), and in further view of Kulkarni et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0255027).
With respect to Claims 5-7: While Chen discloses “wherein the calculating of the lane connectivity is further based at least on algorithms” [Chen, ¶ 0030, 0033, 0041,0050, 0061, 0070-0071, and 0075];
Chen does not specifically state that there is a “template/model” being used before the calculation that would be able to restrict movement.
Kulkarni, which is also a lane connectivity system teaches “wherein the calculating of the lane connectivity is further based at least on one or more lane connectivity templates” [Kulkarni, ¶ 0053 with Figures 1 and 2];
“that restricts invalid combinations of lane directions for ingress and egress between lanes” [Kulkarni, ¶ 0053 with Figures 1 and 2];
“and that are generated based at least on the respective combinations of directions” [Kulkarni, ¶ 0053 with Figures 1 and 2];
“wherein the one or more lane connectivity templates are filtered based at least on the one or more constraints” [Kulkarni, ¶ 0053 with Figures 1 and 2];
“wherein use of the one or more lane connectivity templates for the calculating of the lane connectivity is based at least on respective rankings of the one or more predefined lane connectivity templates” [Kulkarni, ¶ 0053 with Figures 1 and 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kulkarni into the invention of Chen to not only include using sensor and map data for lane connectivity determination as Chen discloses but to also use probability distribution as templates/models of possible lane connectivity where allowed movement patterns can be seen as taught by Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Kulkarni into Chen to create a more robust system that not only uses maps and sensor data for lane connectivity but also use algorithms of probability to determine allowed and the most probably paths for vehicles in intersection which creates more predictable vehicle controls system. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such a mapping intersections for lane connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable being unpatentable over Chen et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0167582) over McCarthy et al. (United States Patent Publication 2013/0325339) and in further view of Pendyala et al. (United States Patent 11,604,073).
With respect to Claims 15-17: While Chen discloses “A system comprising: one or more processors to perform one or more navigation, localization, or control operations used by a machine to maneuver through an intersection” [Chen, ¶ 0002, and 0070-0072];
“and adding an indication of the lane connectivity to at least a subset of the map data corresponding to the intersection” [Chen, ¶ 0002, and 0070-0072];
Chen does not specifically state what the constraints are or that the system is used for intersections or that right of way is based on maps.
McCarthy, which is also a lane connectivity system teaches “wherein the intersection includes two or more lanes that correspond to different directions and that cross each other in the intersection and wherein the map data is updated at least by: calculating lane connectivity for an intersection based at least on one or more constraints corresponding to vehicular movement between lanes within the intersection” [McCarthy, ¶ 0117, 0198-0205, 0222 with Figures 18-19];
“the one or more constraints being determined based at least on road marking information about one or more road markings corresponding to the intersection as included in semantic information corresponding to the intersection” [McCarthy, ¶ 0117, 0198-0205, 0222 with Figures 18-19];
“the lane connectivity indicating an ingress and egress relationship between at least two of the lanes” [McCarthy, ¶ 0117, 0198-0205, 0222 with Figures 18-19];
“the calculating of the lane connectivity further including filtering out lane connections that are identified as being inconsistent with the one or more constraints as identified from the semantic information” [McCarthy, ¶ 0117, 0198-0205, 0222, 0231 with Figure 19 (As each intersection is processed, some embodiments store a template pattern for that intersection. When additional intersections with the template pattern are identified, such embodiments store a reference to that pattern (while still creating a separate data structure, as the location information is different for two intersections that follow the same pattern)];
“wherein the one or more constraints include one or more of: one or more physical constraints or one or more legal constraints” [McCarthy, ¶ 0117, 0198-0205, 0222 with Figures 18-19];
“wherein at least some of the semantic information used to calculate the lane connectivity further includes one or more of: a respective type of one or more of the lanes; a respective direction of travel of one or more of the lanes; a respective right of way corresponding to one or more of the lanes; one or more traffic lights; one or more traffic signs; one or more traffic rules; one or more physical obstacles; or one or more traffic laws” [McCarthy, ¶ 0117, 0198-0205, 0222 with Figures 18-19].
Office Note: The claims state the term filtering and when the Office looked into the specification, for support as to what was actually being carried out, the specification states " In some embodiments, the action 3503 may include accessing predefined lane connectivity templates that can apply to the intersection with the predefined lane connectivity templates configured to prevent invalid combinations of lane directions, filtering the predefined lane connectivity templates to eliminate predefined lane connectivity templates that are inconsistent with the constraints on the lanes at the intersection” [Specification, ¶ 00222]. Therefore, based on the specification, using patterns/templates of known intersections, and comparing them and only choosing the ones that match would read on filtering out combinations and these limitations will be interpreted as such moving forward.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of McCarthy into the invention of Chen to not only include using sensor and map data for lane connectivity determination as Chen discloses but to also use calculated intersections as templates for other intersections as taught by McCarthy with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art McCarthy into Chen to create a more robust system that not only uses maps and sensor data for lane connectivity but also saves templates for use in other intersections thus saving time and space [McCarthy, ¶ 0205]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such a mapping intersections for lane connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Further, Pendyala, which is also a route guidance system based on maps teaches “A system comprising: one or more processors to perform one or more navigation, localization, or control operations used by a machine to maneuver through an intersection based at least on a right of way determination made based at least on lane connectivity information corresponding to the intersection as included in map data of an area that includes the intersection” [Pendyala, Col 5 lines 30-51 and Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pendyala into the invention of Chen to not only include using sensor and map data for lane connectivity determination as Chen discloses but to also use map data with right of way rules as taught by Pendyala with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Pendyala into Chen to create a more robust system that not only uses maps and sensor data for lane connectivity but also use rules based on map data to increase safety. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such a mapping intersections for lane connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0167582) in view of McCarthy et al. (United States Patent Publication 2013/0325339), in further view of Pendyala et al. (United States Patent 11,604,073), and in further view of Kulkarni et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0255027).
With respect to Claims 18-20: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 5-7. The apparatus taught/disclosed in Claims 18-20 can clearly perform the method of Claims 5-7. Therefore Claims 18-20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c