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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 8, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on May 8, 2026.
Claims 1, 3, and 13 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement that was filed on April 17, 2026 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
In view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections are withdrawn for claims 1-12 because the amended claims no longer include an abstract idea.
However, the 35 USC 101 rejections for claims 13-20 are maintained.
Applicant argues that the amended claims, “do not recite the mental process as alleged by the Office Action on page 7 under Step 2A Prong 1” (See Remarks filed on March 6, 2026 on page 8), “provide a practical application for providing an updated map during driving” and are “integrated into a practical application of providing an updated map during driving, and contributes to an improved technical solution of a practical problem as described in the specification.” (See Remarks filed on March 6, 2026 on page 9.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiners are bound by the guidance provided by the USPTO in determining 35 USC 101 rejections. The current claim limitations are analogous to Claim 2 in Example 47 from the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. In Claim 2, Example 47, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the following limitations were found to be include an abstract idea of “discretizing…the continuous training data to generate input data”, “detecting one or more anomalies in a data set using the trained ANN [artificial neural network]” and “analyzing the one or more detected anomalies using the trained ANN to generate anomaly data”. Therefore, using the same reasoning for the current claims, the limitation in current claim 13 of “determine map update information …wherein the map update information comprises a plurality of identifiers of a corresponding plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, the map update information further comprises an update policy or auxiliary information used by the first device to generate the update policy, the update policy comprises an update sequence of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, and the update sequence indicates an order of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles” is considered to be an abstract idea.
Further, in claim 2 of Example 47, the following wase found to be additional element, “outputting the anomaly data from the trained ANN”, as explained “regarding step (f), the step of outputting the anomaly data merely requires a generic output using the trained ANN. The claim does not impose any limits on how the data is output or require any particular components that are used to output the anomaly data.” Currently, claim 13 similarly includes claim limitations to “send the map update information” via generic computer output at a high level of generality.
Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application. Further, these additional elements do not amount significantly more because sending data over a network is well understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Support for this position is also found in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In conclusion, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. The outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections for claims 13-20 are maintained but are modified in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s amendments and arguments submitted on March 3, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, based on Applicant’s amendments, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new ground of rejection is made in view of Yang, et al. (Publication US 2015/0228049 A1).
With respect to the outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections, they are all maintained but have been modified based on Applicant’s amendments and on the newly found art in the updated search based on Applicant’s amendments.
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 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a map tile update apparatus (i.e., an apparatus).
Therefore, claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 13 recites:
A map tile update apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory stores program instructions for execution by the at least one processor to:
determine map update information;
send the map update information to a first device, wherein the map update information comprises a plurality of identifiers of a corresponding plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, the map update information further comprises an update policy or auxiliary information used by the first device to generate the update policy, the update policy comprises an update sequence of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles; and
send update information of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles to the first device in the order of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine map update information … wherein the map update information comprises a plurality of identifiers of a corresponding plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, the map update information further comprises an update policy or auxiliary information used by the first device to generate the update policy, the update policy comprises an update sequence of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing this limitation mentally or by using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A map tile update apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory stores program instructions for execution by the at least one processor to:
determine map update information;
send the map update information to a first device, wherein the map update information comprises a plurality of identifiers of a corresponding plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, the map update information further comprises an update policy or auxiliary information used by the first device to generate the update policy, the update policy comprises an update sequence of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles; and
send update information of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles to the first device in the order of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory stores program instructions for execution by the at least one processor to, it merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose navigation environment. The at least one processor and communicatively connected memory are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract idea steps.
Regarding the additional limitations of send the map update information to a first device and send update information of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles to the first device in the order of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of merely sending and receiving data over a network. In particular, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 13 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the “determine map update information … wherein the map update information comprises a plurality of identifiers of a corresponding plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, the map update information further comprises an update policy or auxiliary information used by the first device to generate the update policy, the update policy comprises an update sequence of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory stores program instructions for execution by the at least one processor to receive map update information from a second device, wherein the map update information comprises identifiers of a plurality of to-be-updated map tiles” and
the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory stores program instructions for execution by the at least one processor to receive map update information from a second device, wherein the map update information comprises identifiers of a plurality of to-be-updated map tiles”, “send the map update information to a first device”, and “send update information of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles to the first device in the order of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a navigation system and that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 14-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claims 14-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 13.
Therefore, claims 13-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikamori, et al., Publication US 2022/0222060 A1, in view of Cervelli, et al., Publication US 2017/0052747 A1, and Yang, et al., Publication US 2015/0228049 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Chikamori”, “Cervelli”, and “Yang”.)
As per claim 1, Chikamori discloses a map tile update method, comprising:
receiving, by a first device, map update information from a second device, wherein the map update information comprises … identifiers of a … plurality of to-be-updated map tiles [see at least Chikamori [0066] "When the map server 3 receives a request for data from the control device 16 (the map acquisition unit 51) via the communication device 9, the map server 3 transmits a dynamic map corresponding to the requested data to the control device 16."; [0071] "...In the first update process, the map acquisition unit 51 first communicates with the map server 3 via the network and acquires the latest version information of the dynamic map (S1). The version information is given to each piece of block data. The map acquisition unit 51 may acquire the version information corresponding to multiple blocks within a prescribed distance from the own vehicle position."];
obtaining, by the first device, an update policy based on the map update information, wherein the update policy comprises an update sequence of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles [see at least Chikamori [0072] "Subsequently, the map acquisition unit 51 decides priority orders of pieces of block data of the dynamic map data (the high accuracy map data) to be updated…At this time, the map acquisition unit 51 preferably decides the priority orders by taking into account the version information."]; and
receiving, by the first device according to the update sequence, update information of the … to-be-updated map tiles from the second device based on the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0083] "Next, based on the priority orders, the map acquisition unit 51 selects the piece of block data having the highest priority order (S4). Then, the map acquisition unit 51 generates a transmission request corresponding to the piece of block data with the highest priority order, and transmits the transmission request to the map server 3 via the network (S5)."; [0084] "Upon receipt of the transmission request, the block data transmission unit 62 of the map server 3 transmits update data of the target piece of block data to the vehicle system 2 in accordance with the transmission request."; [0085] "The map acquisition unit 51 downloads the update data of the target piece of block data from the map server 3 (S6), and updates the corresponding piece of block data stored in the map storage unit 52 according to the downloaded update data (S7)."]
Chikamori fails to disclose … a plurality of identifiers of a corresponding plurality of to-be-updated map tiles …; and … receiving … update information of the plurality of to-be updated map tiles from the second device … . However, Cervelli teaches these limitations [See at least Cervelli [0024] "...the one or more hardware processors are further configured to receive a selection of a second attribute value, generate a second filter by providing an indication of the second attribute value to a server computing device, receive a second update to the interactive map from the server computing device based on the indication, the second update comprising at least a second updated map tile of the interactive map, update the interactive map with the second updated map tile such that data objects of the plurality of data objects that are associated with both the first attribute value and the second attribute value are displayed as active data objects..."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Chikamori to use … a plurality of identifiers of a corresponding plurality of to-be-updated map tiles …; and … receiving … update information of the plurality of to-be updated map tiles from the second device … as disclosed in Cervelli with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more effectively identifying relevant mapping data. [See at least Cervelli [0019].]
The combination of Chikamori and Cervelli fails to disclose … the update sequence indicates an order of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles… and … wherein the update information of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles are received in the order of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles. However, Yang teaches these limitations [see at least Yang [0064] “…the control module 108 may perform all of the processing to determine the regions and the priorities for all of the primitive blocks that are currently being processed; to update the priorities and/or regions when it receives an indication that a tiling engine pipe 110 has finished processing a tile; and to determine which tile each of the tiling engine pipes 110 is to process next. The control module 108 can then send indications to the tiling engine pipes 110 to indicate which tiles the tiling engine pipes 110 are to process next, and the tiling engine pipes 110 signal back to the control module 108 when a tile has been processed.”]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Chikamori and Cervelli to use … the update sequence indicates an order of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles… and … wherein the update information of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles are received in the order of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles as disclosed in Yang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving the performance of a tiling unit to reduce the latency of the processing. [See at least Yang [0004].]
As per claim 2, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Chikamori discloses … wherein the update policy is related to at least one of a planned traveling path of the first device, distances between geographical locations corresponding to the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles and a location of the first device, importance of the plurality of to-be- updated map tiles, map content similarities between versions of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles in the first device and latest versions of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, or freshness of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles in the first device [see at least Chikamori (planned traveling path of the apparatus) [0073] "Preferably, the priority orders of the pieces of block data to be updated are set based on various criteria. For example, it is preferable if the priority orders are set based on the route to the destination set by the navigation device 11 such that priority orders of multiple pieces of block data corresponding to blocks (regions) including the route to the destination are high."]
As per claim 3, Chikamori discloses a map tile update apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory stores program instructions for execution by the at least one processor to:
receive map update information from a second device, wherein the map update information comprises … identifiers of a … plurality of to-be-updated map tiles [see at least Chikamori [0066] "When the map server 3 receives a request for data from the control device 16 (the map acquisition unit 51) via the communication device 9, the map server 3 transmits a dynamic map corresponding to the requested data to the control device 16."; [0071] "...In the first update process, the map acquisition unit 51 first communicates with the map server 3 via the network and acquires the latest version information of the dynamic map (S1). The version information is given to each piece of block data. The map acquisition unit 51 may acquire the version information corresponding to multiple blocks within a prescribed distance from the own vehicle position."];
obtain an update policy based on the map update information, wherein the update policy comprises an update sequence of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles [see at least Chikamori [0072] "Subsequently, the map acquisition unit 51 decides priority orders of pieces of block data of the dynamic map data (the high accuracy map data) to be updated…At this time, the map acquisition unit 51 preferably decides the priority orders by taking into account the version information."]; and
receive, according to the update sequence, update information of the … to-be-updated map tiles … based on the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0083] "Next, based on the priority orders, the map acquisition unit 51 selects the piece of block data having the highest priority order (S4). Then, the map acquisition unit 51 generates a transmission request corresponding to the piece of block data with the highest priority order, and transmits the transmission request to the map server 3 via the network (S5)."; [0084] "Upon receipt of the transmission request, the block data transmission unit 62 of the map server 3 transmits update data of the target piece of block data to the vehicle system 2 in accordance with the transmission request."; [0085] "The map acquisition unit 51 downloads the update data of the target piece of block data from the map server 3 (S6), and updates the corresponding piece of block data stored in the map storage unit 52 according to the downloaded update data (S7)."]
Chikamori fails to disclose … a plurality of identifiers of a corresponding plurality of to-be-updated map tiles …; and … receive … update information of the plurality of to-be updated map tiles from the second device … . However, Cervelli teaches these limitations [See at least Cervelli [0024] "...the one or more hardware processors are further configured to receive a selection of a second attribute value, generate a second filter by providing an indication of the second attribute value to a server computing device, receive a second update to the interactive map from the server computing device based on the indication, the second update comprising at least a second updated map tile of the interactive map, update the interactive map with the second updated map tile such that data objects of the plurality of data objects that are associated with both the first attribute value and the second attribute value are displayed as active data objects..."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed in Chikamori to use … a plurality of identifiers of a corresponding plurality of to-be-updated map tiles …; and … receive … update information of the plurality of to-be updated map tiles from the second device … as disclosed in Cervelli with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more effectively identifying relevant mapping data. [See at least Cervelli [0019].]
The combination of Chikamori and Cervelli fails to disclose … the update sequence indicates an order of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles… and … wherein the update information of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles are received in the order of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles. However, Yang teaches these limitations [see at least Yang [0064] “…the control module 108 may perform all of the processing to determine the regions and the priorities for all of the primitive blocks that are currently being processed; to update the priorities and/or regions when it receives an indication that a tiling engine pipe 110 has finished processing a tile; and to determine which tile each of the tiling engine pipes 110 is to process next. The control module 108 can then send indications to the tiling engine pipes 110 to indicate which tiles the tiling engine pipes 110 are to process next, and the tiling engine pipes 110 signal back to the control module 108 when a tile has been processed.”]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Chikamori and Cervelli to use … the update sequence indicates an order of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles… and … wherein the update information of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles are received in the order of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles as disclosed in Yang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving the performance of a tiling unit to reduce the latency of the processing. [See at least Yang [0004].]
As per claim 4, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 3.
Chikamori discloses … wherein the update policy is related to at least one of a planned traveling path of the apparatus, distances between geographical locations corresponding to the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles and a location of the apparatus, importance of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, map content similarities between versions of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles in the apparatus and latest versions of the plurality of to- be-updated map tiles, or freshness of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles in the apparatus [see at least Chikamori [0073] "Preferably, the priority orders of the pieces of block data to be updated are set based on various criteria. For example, it is preferable if the priority orders are set based on the route to the destination set by the navigation device 11 such that priority orders of multiple pieces of block data corresponding to blocks (regions) including the route to the destination are high."]
As per claim 5, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
Chikamori discloses … wherein when the update policy is related to the planned traveling path of the apparatus, the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to:
sort the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles based on a trajectory of the traveling path, to obtain the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0073] "Preferably, the priority orders of the pieces of block data to be updated are set based on various criteria. For example, it is preferable if the priority orders are set based on the route to the destination set by the navigation device 11 such that priority orders of multiple pieces of block data corresponding to blocks (regions) including the route to the destination are high."]
As per claim 6, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
Chikamori discloses … wherein when the update policy is related to the distances between the location of the apparatus and the geographical locations corresponding to the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to:
sort the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, based on the distances, to obtain the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0073] "...Also, it is preferable if the priority orders of the multiple pieces of block data corresponding to the blocks including the route to the destination are set such that a piece of block data corresponding to a region nearer to the position of the own vehicle is given a higher priority order."]
As per claim 7, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
Chikamori discloses … wherein when the update policy is related to the importance of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, the map update information further comprises importance information of the … to-be-updated map tiles, and the importance of the … to-be-updated map tiles is positively correlated with a degree of impact of a change in a map element in the … to-be-updated map tiles on driving; and
wherein the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to:
sort the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, based on the importance information of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, to obtain the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0075] "Also, it is preferable if, based on the position of the own vehicle, higher priority orders are set for the pieces of block data corresponding to the blocks nearer to the position of the own vehicle. The priority orders may be set based on the direction of the own vehicle. For example, preferably, the priority orders of the pieces of block data corresponding to the blocks positioned in front of the own vehicle with respect to the traveling direction of the own vehicle are set higher than the priority orders of the pieces of block data corresponding to the blocks positioned behind the own vehicle with respect to the traveling direction of the own vehicle."]
Chikamori fails to disclose … a plurality of to-be-updated map tiles … . However, Cervelli teaches these limitations [See at least Cervelli [0024] "...the one or more hardware processors are further configured to receive a selection of a second attribute value, generate a second filter by providing an indication of the second attribute value to a server computing device, receive a second update to the interactive map from the server computing device based on the indication, the second update comprising at least a second updated map tile of the interactive map, update the interactive map with the second updated map tile such that data objects of the plurality of data objects that are associated with both the first attribute value and the second attribute value are displayed as active data objects..."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed in Chikamori to use … a plurality of to-be-updated map tiles … as disclosed in Cervelli with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more effectively identifying relevant mapping data. [See at least Cervelli [0019].]
As per claim 8, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
Chikamori discloses … wherein when the update policy is related to the map content similarities, the map update information further comprises the map content similarities of the … to-be-updated map tiles, and the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to:
sort the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles based on the map content similarities, to obtain the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0076] "Also, since the pieces of block data of the latest version do not need to be updated, the priority orders of them should be set at the lowest."]
Chikamori fails to disclose … a plurality of to-be-updated map tiles … . However, Cervelli teaches these limitations [See at least Cervelli [0024] "...the one or more hardware processors are further configured to receive a selection of a second attribute value, generate a second filter by providing an indication of the second attribute value to a server computing device, receive a second update to the interactive map from the server computing device based on the indication, the second update comprising at least a second updated map tile of the interactive map, update the interactive map with the second updated map tile such that data objects of the plurality of data objects that are associated with both the first attribute value and the second attribute value are displayed as active data objects..."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed in Chikamori to use … a plurality of to-be-updated map tiles … as disclosed in Cervelli with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more effectively identifying relevant mapping data. [See at least Cervelli [0019].]
As per claim 9, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
Chikamori discloses … wherein when the update policy is related to the freshness of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles in the apparatus, the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to:
sort the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, based on the freshness of the plurality of to- be-updated map tiles in the apparatus, to obtain the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0076] "...Whether each piece of block data is the latest version is preferably determined by comparing the latest version information acquired from the map server 3 with the version information of each piece of block data stored in the map storage unit 52."]
As per claim 10, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
Chikamori discloses … wherein when the update policy is related to a plurality of types of auxiliary information, the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to:
sort the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, based on at least one of priorities of the plurality of types of the auxiliary information or weights of the plurality of types of the auxiliary information, to obtain the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0080] "Subsequently, the map acquisition unit 51 adds a first addition value to the priority degrees of those of the multiple blocks that are determined to include the route to the destination based on the route to the destination (S14). ...Then, the map acquisition unit 51 adds a second addition value to the priority degrees of those of the multiple blocks that are determined to have a high passage frequency in the past based on the passage history (S15). T...Next, the map acquisition unit 51 adds a third addition value to the priority degrees of the multiple blocks, ... Then, the map acquisition unit 51 sets the priority orders of the pieces of block data in accordance with the calculated priority degrees such that the piece of block data corresponding to the highest priority degree is given the highest priority order and the priority order decreases as the priority degree decreases (S17)."]
As per claim 11, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 3.
Chikamori discloses … wherein the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to:
send query information to the second device; and
receive the map update information from the second device, wherein the map update information is sent by the second device in response to the query information [see at least Chikamori [0083] "Next, based on the priority orders, the map acquisition unit 51 selects the piece of block data having the highest priority order (S4). Then, the map acquisition unit 51 generates a transmission request corresponding to the piece of block data with the highest priority order, and transmits the transmission request to the map server 3 via the network (S5)."; [0084] "Upon receipt of the transmission request, the block data transmission unit 62 of the map server 3 transmits update data of the target piece of block data to the vehicle system 2 in accordance with the transmission request."; [0085] "The map acquisition unit 51 downloads the update data of the target piece of block data from the map server 3 (S6), and updates the corresponding piece of block data stored in the map storage unit 52 according to the downloaded update data (S7)."]
As per claim 12, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 3.
Chikamori discloses … wherein the map update information further comprises the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0095] "Preferably, the map acquisition unit 51 communicates via the network with a plan management server 71 that stores plan information of multiple users to acquire plan information of a target user, and decides future expected routes based on the acquired plan information."]
As per claim 13, Chikamori discloses a map tile update apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory stores program instructions for execution by the at least one processor to:
determine map update information [see at least Chikamori [0071] "...In the first update process, the map acquisition unit 51 first communicates with the map server 3 via the network and acquires the latest version information of the dynamic map (S1). The version information is given to each piece of block data. The map acquisition unit 51 may acquire the version information corresponding to multiple blocks within a prescribed distance from the own vehicle position."; [0072] "Subsequently, the map acquisition unit 51 decides priority orders of pieces of block data of the dynamic map data (the high accuracy map data) to be updated…At this time, the map acquisition unit 51 preferably decides the priority orders by taking into account the version information."]; and
send the map update information to a first device, wherein the map update information comprises … identifiers of a … plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, the map update information further comprises an update policy or auxiliary information used by the first device to generate the update policy, and the update policy comprises an update sequence of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles [see at least Chikamori [0083] "Next, based on the priority orders, the map acquisition unit 51 selects the piece of block data having the highest priority order (S4). Then, the map acquisition unit 51 generates a transmission request corresponding to the piece of block data with the highest priority order, and transmits the transmission request to the map server 3 via the network (S5)."; [0084] "Upon receipt of the transmission request, the block data transmission unit 62 of the map server 3 transmits update data of the target piece of block data to the vehicle system 2 in accordance with the transmission request."; [0085] "The map acquisition unit 51 downloads the update data of the target piece of block data from the map server 3 (S6), and updates the corresponding piece of block data stored in the map storage unit 52 according to the downloaded update data (S7)."; [0095] Preferably, the map acquisition unit 51 communicates via the network with a plan management server 71 that stores plan information of multiple users to acquire plan information of a target user, and decides future expected routes based on the acquired plan information.]
Chikamori fails to disclose … a plurality of identifiers of a corresponding plurality of to-be-updated map tiles … . However, Cervelli teaches these limitations [See at least Cervelli [0024] "...the one or more hardware processors are further configured to receive a selection of a second attribute value, generate a second filter by providing an indication of the second attribute value to a server computing device, receive a second update to the interactive map from the server computing device based on the indication, the second update comprising at least a second updated map tile of the interactive map, update the interactive map with the second updated map tile such that data objects of the plurality of data objects that are associated with both the first attribute value and the second attribute value are displayed as active data objects..."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed in Chikamori to use … a plurality of identifiers of a corresponding plurality of to-be-updated map tiles … as disclosed in Cervelli with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more effectively identifying relevant mapping data. [See at least Cervelli [0019].]
The combination of Chikamori and Cervelli fails to disclose … the update sequence indicates an order of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles… and … send update information of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles to the first device in the order of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles. However, Yang teaches these limitations [see at least Yang [0064] “…the control module 108 may perform all of the processing to determine the regions and the priorities for all of the primitive blocks that are currently being processed; to update the priorities and/or regions when it receives an indication that a tiling engine pipe 110 has finished processing a tile; and to determine which tile each of the tiling engine pipes 110 is to process next. The control module 108 can then send indications to the tiling engine pipes 110 to indicate which tiles the tiling engine pipes 110 are to process next, and the tiling engine pipes 110 signal back to the control module 108 when a tile has been processed.”]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Chikamori and Cervelli to use … the update sequence indicates an order of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles… and … send update information of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles to the first device in the order of the plurality of to-be-updated … tiles as disclosed in Yang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving the performance of a tiling unit to reduce the latency of the processing. [See at least Yang [0004].]
As per claim 14, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 13.
Chikamori discloses … wherein the auxiliary information comprises at least one of a planned traveling path of the first device, distances between geographical locations corresponding to the plurality of to-be- updated map tiles and a location of the first device, importance of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, map content similarities between versions of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles in the first device and latest versions of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, or freshness of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles in the first device [see at least Chikamori (planned traveling path of the apparatus) [0073] "Preferably, the priority orders of the pieces of block data to be updated are set based on various criteria. For example, it is preferable if the priority orders are set based on the route to the destination set by the navigation device 11 such that priority orders of multiple pieces of block data corresponding to blocks (regions) including the route to the destination are high."]
As per claim 15, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Chikamori discloses … wherein when the map update information comprises the update policy, the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to:
sort the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, based on a trajectory of the planned traveling path of the first device, to obtain the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0073] "Preferably, the priority orders of the pieces of block data to be updated are set based on various criteria. For example, it is preferable if the priority orders are set based on the route to the destination set by the navigation device 11 such that priority orders of multiple pieces of block data corresponding to blocks (regions) including the route to the destination are high."]
As per claim 16, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Chikamori discloses … wherein when the map update information comprises the update policy, the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to:
sort the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, based on the distances between the geographical locations corresponding to the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles and the location of the first device, to obtain the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0073] "...Also, it is preferable if the priority orders of the multiple pieces of block data corresponding to the blocks including the route to the destination are set such that a piece of block data corresponding to a region nearer to the position of the own vehicle is given a higher priority order."]
As per claim 17, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Chikamori discloses … wherein when the map update information comprises the update policy, the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to: sort the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, based on the importance of the plurality of to- be-updated map tiles, to obtain the update policy, wherein the importance of the … to-be-updated map tiles is positively correlated with a degree of impact of a change in a map element in the … to-be-updated map tiles on driving [see at least Chikamori [0075] "Also, it is preferable if, based on the position of the own vehicle, higher priority orders are set for the pieces of block data corresponding to the blocks nearer to the position of the own vehicle. The priority orders may be set based on the direction of the own vehicle. For example, preferably, the priority orders of the pieces of block data corresponding to the blocks positioned in front of the own vehicle with respect to the traveling direction of the own vehicle are set higher than the priority orders of the pieces of block data corresponding to the blocks positioned behind the own vehicle with respect to the traveling direction of the own vehicle."]
Chikamori fails to disclose … plurality of to-be-updated map tiles … . However, Cervelli teaches these limitations [See at least Cervelli [0024] "...the one or more hardware processors are further configured to receive a selection of a second attribute value, generate a second filter by providing an indication of the second attribute value to a server computing device, receive a second update to the interactive map from the server computing device based on the indication, the second update comprising at least a second updated map tile of the interactive map, update the interactive map with the second updated map tile such that data objects of the plurality of data objects that are associated with both the first attribute value and the second attribute value are displayed as active data objects..."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed in Chikamori to use … plurality of to-be-updated map tiles … as disclosed in Cervelli with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more effectively identifying relevant mapping data. [See at least Cervelli [0019].]
As per claim 18, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Chikamori discloses … wherein when the map update information comprises the update policy, the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to:
sort the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, based on the map content similarities between the versions of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles in the first device and the latest versions of the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, to obtain the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0076] "Also, since the pieces of block data of the latest version do not need to be updated, the priority orders of them should be set at the lowest."]
As per claim 19, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Chikamori discloses … wherein when the map update information comprises the update policy, the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to:
sort the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, based on the freshness of the plurality of to- be-updated map tiles in the first device, to obtain the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0076] "...Whether each piece of block data is the latest version is preferably determined by comparing the latest version information acquired from the map server 3 with the version information of each piece of block data stored in the map storage unit 52."]
As per claim 20, the combination of Chikamori, Cervelli, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 13.
Chikamori discloses … wherein when the map update information comprises the update policy, the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to:
sort the plurality of to-be-updated map tiles, based on at least one of priorities of the plurality of types of the auxiliary information or weights of the plurality of types of the auxiliary information, to obtain the update policy [see at least Chikamori [0080] "Subsequently, the map acquisition unit 51 adds a first addition value to the priority degrees of those of the multiple blocks that are determined to include the route to the destination based on the route to the destination (S14). ...Then, the map acquisition unit 51 adds a second addition value to the priority degrees of those of the multiple blocks that are determined to have a high passage frequency in the past based on the passage history (S15). T...Next, the map acquisition unit 51 adds a third addition value to the priority degrees of the multiple blocks, ... Then, the map acquisition unit 51 sets the priority orders of the pieces of block data in accordance with the calculated priority degrees such that the piece of block data corresponding to the highest priority degree is given the highest priority order and the priority order decreases as the priority degree decreases (S17)."]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights