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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and Request for Continued Examination (RCE) of 08 December 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Upon further consideration, the Claim Objections as set forth in the office action of 15 August 2025 are withdrawn. Examiner is now taking each of “first correction to map data” and “second correction to map data” as a whole limitation which are then referred back to as “the first correction” and “the second correction”, respectively.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the first rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(a) regarding “objects” as set forth in the office action of 15 August 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the first rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(a) regarding “objects” as set forth in the office action of 15 August 2025 has been withdrawn. Examiner assumes Applicant’s amendments is now claiming the “features” of Applicant’s specification which is why the corresponding 35 USC 112(a) rejection is withdrawn; however, see 35 USC 112(b) below regarding a confusion that needs clarifying.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(a) regarding “assigning ...” as set forth in the office action of 15 August 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Applicant has not argued the rejection but states that their amendments should overcome the rejection, Examiner has carefully considered the amendments and respectfully disagrees, see 35 USC 112(a) below as to why/how the currently amended limitations are still rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 15 August 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Applicant has not argued the rejections but states that their amendments should overcome the rejections, Examiner has carefully considered the amendments and respectfully disagrees, see 35 USC 112(b) below as to why/how the currently amended limitations are still rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 15 August 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant recites what each of the prior arts on record generally discloses/teaches as their respective overall concept(s) and states that the argued limitations (which Examiner is taking as the bolded limitations in Applicant’s remarks) are not disclosed/taught by such; however, it is unclear, to the Examiner, what specifically Applicant believes is the difference between the argued limitations and the cited portions of the corresponding prior arts on record; therefore, Examiner puts their best effort to point to each argued limitation and the corresponding cited portions of the prior arts that disclose/teach them while reciting some of the more specific portions to help clarify Examiner’s understanding of the limitations, under BRI-
“a first correction to map data identifying a location in the map data, the first correction generated based on first object features detected by a first artificial intelligence model executed at the first autonomous vehicle and a first confidence value associated with the first object features detected by the first artificial intelligence model, and ... a second correction to map data identifying the location in the map data, the second correction generated based on second object features detected by a second artificial intelligence model executed at the second autonomous vehicle and a second confidence value associated with the second object features detected by the second artificial intelligence model” - Examiner points to at least [0125], [0126], [0171]-[0174] and specifically [0243] and [0244] of Bailly => see at least: “... associate the confidence level with the change candidate for the lane closure proposal for use in updating maps ... provide the generated change candidate for the lane modification proposals to the online HD map system ... receive change candidates having lane modification proposals from a plurality of vehicles ...”; and Examiner points to at least abstract, [0006]-[0010] of Lambert => see at least “... input the sensor data along with HD data for the area into a neural network (such as a convolutional neural network) to determine distances between features in the map data and corresponding features in the sensor data ...”. See 35 USC 103 below in regards to the combination of Bailey as modified by Lambert disclosing the whole argued limitations.
“assigning a first priority, based on the first confidence value and the second confidence value; and assigning a second priority, based on deviation values of the first correction and the second correction from a corresponding existing location in the map data, wherein the first priority is higher than the second priority” – Examiner points to at least [0244] and [0255] of Bailly => “... each instance of a lane modification proposal in a change candidate is weighted by the confidence level determined for the lane closure proposal ... The confidence level of the final change candidate”; and Examiner points to at least [0012], [0013], [0030], [0031], [0035], [0042] and specifically [0034] of Lambert => “... identify any distances that exceed a threshold, ... as a score (i.e., a measure of the amount by which the distance exceeds the threshold) ... the system also may identify the generated scores that exceed a threshold ... in addition, ... the system may only identify scores that exceed the threshold and that are associated with at least a minimum confidence level”. See 35 USC 103 below in regards to the combination of Bailey as modified by Lambert disclosing the whole argued limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “ranking ... the first correction and the second correction ... by: assigning a first priority, based on the first confidence value and the second confidence value; and assigning a second priority, based on deviation values of the first correction and the second correction from a corresponding existing location in the map data, wherein the first priority is higher than the second priority” (emphasis added). The only part associated with this limitation in Applicant’s as-filed specification includes “corrections with values that deviate more severely from the corresponding features in the map data, but still were detected with high confidence values, may be ranked higher than other corrections with relatively low deviations from what is stored in the map data” in [0094] which Examiner does not find as enough support for the bolded limitations above. While Examiner understands that corrections are overall ranked based on the deviation values and confidence values and that even when corrections have severe deviation values but still were detected with high confidence values, then those corrections are ranked higher, Examiner cannot quite ensure there is enough support for the specific limitations of ranking the correction(s) by assigning a first/separate priority based on confidence value(s) and assigning another/second/separate priority based on deviation value(s) wherein the first priority and the second priority are separately compared to each other by one being higher than the other when ranking the correction(s). Examiner needs further clarifications by the Applicant in remarks and/or amendments to ensure there is appropriate support for the recited limitations.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are indefinite because of the recited limitations “first object features” and “second object features”. There is no “object features” recited in Applicant’s original specification, and based on paragraphs [0021] and [0036] of Applicant’s as-filed specification, objects and features are actually distinguished from each other as being different things. Therefore, it is unclear, to the Examiner, what exactly Applicant means by “object features”. In view of the previous 35 USC 112(a) rejection for the “objects” previously recited, Examiner, for purposes of examination, assumes Applicant meant to instead recite “first features” and “second features” and correction of such in the claims is suggested to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) while also avoiding a 35 USC 112(a) rejection.
Claims 1 and 11 are indefinite because of the recited limitations “... and a first confidence value ... and a second confidence value ...”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, which part of the corresponding limitations exactly are these associated with, respectively. For example, is it receiving a first/second correction and a first/second confidence value or is it the first/second correction being generated based on first/second object features and a first/second confidence value. Applicant can clarify this by making a note in the remarks of whichever one corresponds to Applicant’s intent by the limitation.
Claims 1 and 11 are indefinite because of the recited limitations “ranked corrections of the first correction and the second correction”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, what exactly Applicant means by “ranked corrections” and further the connection or lack thereof between such limitation and the previously recited limitation of “ranking ... the first correction and the second correction” is unclear, to the Examiner.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (US20210004363A1) in view of Lambert (US20220146277A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bailly discloses a computer-implemented method for correcting map data of an autonomous vehicle (see at least Figure 10), comprising: receiving, by one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory, (i) from a first autonomous vehicle traveling on a road, a first correction to map data identifying a location in the map data (see at least Figure 4, Figure 10, [0090], [0122], [0158], [0166] and [0168]), the first correction generated based on first object features detected by a first system executed at the first autonomous vehicle and a first confidence value associated with the first object features detected by the first system (see at least [0090], [0122], [0158], [0166], [0168] and [0244]); and (ii) from a second autonomous vehicle traveling on the road, a second correction to map data identifying the location in the map data (see at least Figure 4, Figure 10, [0090], [0122], [0158], [0166], [0168] and [0244]), the second correction generated based on second object features detected by a second system executed at the second autonomous vehicle and a second confidence value associated with the second object features detected by the second system (see at least [0090], [0122], [0158], [0166], [0168] and [0244]); ranking, by the one or more processors, the first correction and the second correction by: assigning a first priority, based on the first confidence value and the second confidence value (see at least [0244] and [0255]); generating, by the one or more processors, a modified feature of the map data based on ranked corrections of the first correction and the second correction (see at least [0123], [0174], [0207], [0244] and [0255]); updating, by the one or more processors, the map data based on the modified feature (see at least [0175] and [0191]); and providing, by the one or more processors, the updated map data to the first autonomous vehicle, wherein an autonomy system of the first autonomous vehicle is configured to control operation of the first autonomous vehicle based on the updated map data (see at least [0066]-[0080], [0122] and [0217]).
Bailly does not explicitly disclose the first system and the second system being artificial intelligence models; and ranking the first correction and the second correction being further by assigning a second priority, based on deviation values of the first correction and the second correction from a corresponding existing location in the map data, wherein the first priority is higher than the second priority. However, Lambert teaches the first system and the second system being artificial intelligence models; and ranking the first correction and the second correction being further by assigning a second priority, based on deviation values of the first correction and the second correction from a corresponding existing location in the map data, wherein the first priority is higher than the second priority (see at least abstract, [0006]-[0010], [0012], [0013], [0030], [0031], [0034], [0035] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bailly to incorporate the teachings of Lambert which teaches the first system and the second system being artificial intelligence models; and ranking the first correction and the second correction being further by assigning a second priority, based on deviation values of the first correction and the second correction from a corresponding existing location in the map data, wherein the first priority is higher than the second priority since they are directed to update of map data and incorporation of the teachings of Lambert would increase accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 2, Bailly as modified by Lambert discloses wherein the first correction and the second correction each comprise a semantic correction to the map data (see at least Bailly [0090], [0094], [0101], [0158], [0174], [0189], [0233] and [0234]).
Regarding claim 3, Bailly as modified by Lambert discloses wherein the first correction and the second correction each comprise a geometric correction to the map data (see at least Bailly [0090], [0094], [0101], [0174], [0189] and [0233]).
Regarding claim 5, Bailly as modified by Lambert discloses wherein generating the modified feature is responsive to determining, by the one or more processors, that a number of corrections for the location of the map data satisfies a threshold (see at least Bailly [0123], [0171], [0174], [0190], [0244] and [0254]).
Regarding claim 6, Bailly as modified by Lambert discloses further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, that the first correction satisfies a manual review condition (see at least Bailly [0173], [0188] and [0234]); and generating, by the one or more processors, a notification indicating the first correction upon determining that the first correction satisfies the manual review condition (see at least Bailly [0173], [0188] and [0234]).
Regarding claim 7, Bailly as modified by Lambert discloses further comprising: executing, by the one or more processors, a counter for counting a number of corrections to a feature of the map data (see at least Bailly [0123], [0171], [0174], [0190], [0244], [0254] and [0255]); and correcting, based on the number of corrections satisfying a threshold number of corrections, one or more errors in the feature (see at least Bailly [0123], [0171], [0174], [0190], [0244], [0254] and [0255]).
Regarding claim 9, Bailly discloses wherein the modified feature includes a plurality of modified features (see at least [0168], [0174], [0200], [0207] and [0244]); identifying, by the one or more processors, a set of modified features from the plurality of modified features, each modified feature of the set of modified features corresponding to a respective location of the map data (see at least [0168], [0174], [0200], [0207] and [0244]).
Bailly fails to disclose ranking, by the one or more processors, each modified feature of the set of modified features based on a deviation value between the respective modified feature and a corresponding existing feature of the map data. However, Lambert teaches ranking, by the one or more processors, each modified feature of the set of modified features based on a deviation value between the respective modified feature and a corresponding existing feature of the map data (see at least [0012], [0013], [0030], [0031], [0034], [0035] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bailly to incorporate the teachings of Lambert which teaches ranking, by the one or more processors, each modified feature of the set of modified features based on a deviation value between the respective modified feature and a corresponding existing feature of the map data since they are both directed to updating map data using correction(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Lambert would increase efficiency of the overall system while still maintaining a proper reliability.
Regarding claim 10, Bailly fails to disclose updating, by the one or more processors, the map data based on the ranking of each modified feature of the set of modified features. However, Lambert teaches updating, by the one or more processors, the map data based on the ranking of each modified feature of the set of modified features (see at least [0012], [0013], [0030], [0031], [0034], [0035] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bailly to incorporate the teachings of Lambert which teaches updating, by the one or more processors, the map data based on the ranking of each feature of the set of modified features since they are both directed to updating map data using correction(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Lambert would increase efficiency of the overall system while still maintaining a proper reliability.
Regarding claim 11, Bailly discloses a system for correcting map data of an autonomous vehicle, comprising: one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to (see at least Figure 4, Figure 10, [0058] and [0323]). The rest of claim 11 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 15-17 and 19-20, claims 12, 13 and 15-17 are commensurate in scope with claims 2, 3, 5-7 and 9-10, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-7 and 9-10.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (US20210004363A1) in view of Lambert (US20220146277A1) in further view of Abe (WO2023145738A1 – translation attached).
Regarding claim 4, Bailly as modified by Lambert fails to disclose wherein generating the modified feature comprises calculating, by the one or more processors, an average of first data of the first correction and second data of the second correction. However, Abe teaches wherein generating the modified feature comprises calculating, by the one or more processors, an average of first data of the first correction and second data of the second correction (see at least [0013], [0055], [0056] and [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bailly as modified by Lambert to incorporate the teachings of Abe which teaches wherein generating the modified feature comprises calculating, by the one or more processors, an average of first data of the first correction and second data of the second correction since they are directed to updating map data using correction(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Abe would increase accuracy of the calculations and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is commensurate in scope with claim 4. See above for rejection of claim 4.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (US20210004363A1) in view of Lambert (US20220146277A1) in further view of Mikasa (US20230145649A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bailly as modified by Lambert does not explicitly disclose wherein modifying the map data comprises replacing, by the one or more processors, a corresponding feature of the map data with the modified feature. However, Mikasa teaches wherein modifying the map data comprises replacing, by the one or more processors, a corresponding feature of the map data with the modified feature (see at least [0028] and [0087]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bailly as modified by Lambert to incorporate the teachings of Mikasa which teaches wherein modifying the map data comprises replacing, by the one or more processors, a corresponding feature of the map data with the modified feature since they are both directed to updating map data using correction(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Mikasa would increase accuracy and reliability of the updated map data in the overall system.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is commensurate in scope with claim 8. See above for rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667