DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/31/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
Applicant argues that neither Ichida nor Ken teaches the conditional removal of an overlapping road based on its relevance. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ken teaches determining overlapping roads not being traveled on, and currently traveling roads. These roads are defined to be irrelevant or relevant based on whether the vehicle is currently traveling on them.
Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine Ichida with Ken. Examiner respectfully disagrees. When traveling on the lower road, removing the overlapped upper road allows the driver to see the road they are traveling on more clearly. One would have been motivated to combine Ichida with Ken as this reduces driver confusion. As stated in Ken, "the user can grasp the shape of the traveling road so that the road There are fewer mistakes and it is easier to use" (Ken - Page 7 Paragraph 3).
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 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichida (US 20050222758 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Ken (JP 2011247722 A, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 1, Ichida discloses a method for dynamically reducing complexity of a 3D map, the method comprising (Paragraphs 0002-0010, 0042-0049; “it relates to a displaying method of the system to enable a user to easily recognize a road”);
recording an environment by means of at least one environment detection sensor (Paragraphs 0022-0025);
the environment comprising a structure comprising a first level of roadway at a first elevation and a second level of roadway at a second elevation (Paragraphs 0033-0036, 0042-0044, 0052-0054; “a case that an elevated road (e.g, an expressway) overpasses a usual road (e.g., aboveground road) and these two roads run in vertically parallel with each other”);
providing the 3D map based on the environment (Paragraphs 0003, 0033-0036, 0042-0044, 0052-0054; “a subject vehicle detects a current position of the subject vehicle to thereby show a map surrounding the current position on a display unit of the system. Here, this map is shown in two-dimensional expression, three-dimensional expression, or the like”);
the 3D map comprising the 3D map of the first level of the roadway and the second level of the roadway (Paragraphs 0003, 0033-0036, 0042-0044, 0052-0054; “In the three-dimensional expression that indicates both roads and buildings three-dimensionally, a road is sometimes hidden by a building or by an over-crossing overpass road”);
localizing an ego vehicle on the first level of the roadway in the 3D map (Paragraphs 0003, 0030, 0040-0046; “the current position is computed based on the information from the position detector 3, and a road map surrounding the current position is displayed on the display screen based on the map data. Further, pointers that show the current position and the advancing direction of the vehicle are displayed to be superimposed on the road map”);
wherein the roadway currently being travelled by the vehicle is divided into portions based in part upon an elevation of the portions, and the portions include a first portion at the first elevation and an overhang portion at the second elevation, the overhang portion overlapping in elevation with the first portion of the roadway (Paragraphs 0037-0041; Overlapping portion is mapped to ramp);
and reducing the 3D map to (Paragraphs 0002-0010, 0042-0049);
from the 3-D map (Paragraphs 0002-0010, 0042-0049);
the 3D map being dynamically changeable based upon vehicle movement and position (Paragraphs 0002-0010, 0042-0049);
the reduced 3-D map is used to control the vehicle (Paragraphs 0042-0049; Controlling the vehicle is mapped to displaying the reduced map).
Ichida does not specifically state remove the overhang portion; when irrelevant to the ego vehicle, such that the reduced 3D map contains only those roads currently relevant to the ego vehicle or to other traffic participants relevant to the ego vehicle.
However, Ken teaches remove the overhang portion (Page 5 Paragraph 5, Page 6 Paragraph 3; “the overlying road is erased”);
when irrelevant to the ego vehicle, such that the reduced 3D map contains only those roads currently relevant to the ego vehicle or to other traffic participants relevant to the ego vehicle (Ken - Page 5 Paragraph 4 – Page 6 Paragraph 3) “the road that is currently running is redrawn and displayed on top of the overlapping road”; relevance is based on whether the vehicle is currently travelling on the road
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ichida with removing the overhang portion when irrelevant to the ego vehicle of Ken with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a map for navigating may have roads that are overlapped. This makes it difficult for the driver to understand the roads they are traveling on and the roads nearby. When traveling on the lower road, removing the overlapped upper road allows the driver to see the road they are traveling on more clearly. One would have been motivated to combine Ichida with Ken as this reduces driver confusion. As stated in Ken, “the user can grasp the shape of the traveling road so that the road There are fewer mistakes and it is easier to use” (Page 7 Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 2, Ichida discloses the reducing comprises reducing the 3D map utilizing a graph search algorithm (Paragraphs 0042-0048; Graph search algorithm is mapped to determining whether link is an inter-city expressway, urban expressway, toll road, or elevated bypass, and determining the scale of the link).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichida and Ken, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fowe (US 20230204376 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ichida does not teach the at least one environment detection sensor is a camera, a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, or an ultrasound sensor.
However, Fowe teaches the at least one environment detection sensor is a camera, a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, or an ultrasound sensor (Fowe - Paragraph 0060) “the ranging circuitry 923 may include a LIDAR system, a RADAR system, a structured light camera system, SONAR, or any device configured to detect the range or distance to objects from the mobile device”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ichida with the environment detection sensor as a camera, radar, lidar, or ultrasound sensor of Fowe with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Ichida and Fowe both discuss a vehicle detecting and traveling through an environment. One would have been motivated to combine as this provides maps necessary for safe and accurate routing (Fowe – Paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 4, Ichida does not teach the at least one environment detection sensor is a camera and a representation of the environment is an image of the environment or a sequence of images.
However, Fowe teaches the at least one environment detection sensor is a camera and a representation of the environment is an image of the environment or a sequence of images (Fowe - Paragraph 0060) “image/video cameras, weather sensors, occupant sensors, and any other vehicle sensor that collects data about the vehicle or the environment around the vehicle”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ichida with the environment detection sensor as a camera and detecting an image of Fowe with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Ichida and Fowe both discuss a vehicle detecting and traveling through an environment. One would have been motivated to combine as this provides maps necessary for safe and accurate routing (Fowe – Paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 5, Ichida does not teach the at least one environment detection sensor is a radar sensor, and a representation of the environment is a list of objects.
However, Fowe teaches the at least one environment detection sensor is a radar sensor, and a representation of the environment is a list of objects (Fowe - Paragraph 0060) “the ranging circuitry 923 may include a LIDAR system, a RADAR system, a structured light camera system, SONAR, or any device configured to detect the range or distance to objects from the mobile device”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ichida with the environment detection sensor as a radar sensor and detecting a list of objects of Fowe with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Ichida and Fowe both discuss a vehicle detecting and traveling through an environment. One would have been motivated to combine as this provides maps necessary for safe and accurate routing (Fowe – Paragraph 0021).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights