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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/24/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are directed to new claim limitations.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, applicant argues that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and also provides significantly more than the abstract idea. See the revised 35 USC 101 rejection below that addresses the amended claims and applicant’s arguments.
Regarding 101, applicant argues:
Step 2A Prong One: Applicant asserts that the claim(s) does not recite a judicial exception, but applicant does not appear to have presented arguments regarding the merits of how the identified limitations recite or do not recite a mental process. Instead, the arguments appear to be directed to Step 2A Prong Two and/or Step 2B analysis. Applicant argues that the claims recite “first map information having a specific structure” (page 13/18), but the structure appears to be data/information which are intangible items and are not tangible/physical items. Regarding applicant’s citation of Enfish, it is noted that “The court agreed with the patentee, based on its interpretation of the claimed "means for configuring" under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as requiring a four-step algorithm that achieved the improvements, as opposed to merely any form of storing tabular data.” (MPEP 2016(II) ESTABLISH BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF CLAIM AS A WHOLE); thus, applicant is invited to explain how the claims recite particular algorithm steps to achieve the solutions/improvements in their next written response when citing the Enfish case law.
Step 2A Prong Two: Applicant argues that the alleged mental process is integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a technical solution to a particular problem. This argument is unpersuasive because the new claim limitations in independent claims 13 and 30 are further characterization of the mental process that do not recite a particular solution such as a particular algorithm with particular algorithm steps to achieve/accomplish the solution. Applicant argues that the “(structured reference object data with defined selection principles)” solution to the “(cross-vendor map compatibility)” problem is an improvement, but the solution does not appear to be recited in the claims with sufficient particularity such as providing a particular algorithm with particular algorithm steps to achieve/accomplish the solution (such as the claimed four-step algorithm in Enfish as discussed above). As discussed below, the alleged improvement of providing universality across different map vendors based on relative position expression is considered to be providing “only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it"” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44).
Step 2B: Applicant argues that the additional elements amount to significantly more than the alleged mental process. This argument is unpersuasive because the new claim limitations in independent claims 13 and 30 are further characterization of the mental process. Applicant argues that the claims recite “specific structural limitations” (page 14/18), but the structure appears to be data/information which are intangible items and are not tangible/physical items.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13-28 and 30 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination/interpretation of references being used in the current rejection.
The previous claim objection(s) has/have been addressed and is/are withdrawn.
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 13-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, the additional elements do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
(See MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility.)
Independent Claims:
Regarding independent claims 13 and 30, independent claim 13 is generally representative of the other independent claim(s) 30 with respect to the judicial exception while the claims may recite some variations of additional elements. The abstract limitations are shown in bold font (bold font) while the additional elements are shown in italicized font (italicized font).
Claim 13:
A map information use apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to: obtain first map information, wherein the first map information comprises information about a first reference object set that comprises a first at least one reference object in a geographic area and position information indicating a position of a target object relative to at least a portion of reference objects in the first at least one reference object, and wherein the information about the first reference object set indicates a first identifier of each reference object in the first at least one reference object, and the first identifier indicates a first position of each reference object in the first at least one reference object; and wherein the information about the first reference object set further indicates at least one of: (1) a type of each reference object selected based on one or more of a generality principle, a stability principle, a deterministic principle, or a precision principle, wherein the type indicates a manner in which the reference object is selected from map elements, or (2) a priority of each reference object indicating a degree of compliance between the reference object and a preset reference point selection principle; and determine target position information of the target object based on the first map information, wherein the target position information indicates a position of the target object, and the target object is an element or an event on a map.
Claim 30:
A map information use method, comprising: obtaining first map information, wherein the first map information comprises information about a first reference object set that comprises a first at least one reference object in a geographic area and position information indicating a position of a target object relative to at least a portion of reference objects in the first at least one reference object, and wherein the information about the first reference object set indicates a first identifier of each reference object in the first at least one reference object, and the first identifier indicates a first position of each reference object in the first at least one reference object, and wherein the information about the first reference object set further indicates at least one of: (1) a type of each reference object selected based on one or more of a generality principle, a stability principle, a deterministic principle, or a precision principle, wherein the type indicates a manner in which the reference object is selected from map elements, or (2) a priority of each reference object indicating a degree of compliance between the reference object and a preset reference point selection principle; and determining target position information of the target object based on the first map information, wherein the target position information indicates a position of the target object, and the target object is an element or an event on a map.
Eligibility Step 1:
Claims 13-27 are apparatus claims.
Claim 30 is a method claim.
Thus, the claims fall within a statutory category of invention, respectively.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One:
The bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Mental Processes).
The claims recite the limitations of determining target position information of a target based on first map information. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitations of the “processor” and/or “memory/memories” respectively (hereinafter referred to as the “structural elements” which is an example of an additional element) and the recitation of the “obtain first map information” (hereinafter referred to as “pre-solution activity” which is an example of an additional element). That is, other than reciting the additional elements that include structural elements and pre-solution activity, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the structural elements and the pre-solution activity language, the claims encompass a person analyzing map data/information and determining/planning/predicting the position(s) of object(s) like vehicles/cars/pedestrians/traffic-signs/lane-markings. The mere nominal recitation of the structural elements does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(111)(C)(3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.)).
Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two:
The italicized limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite additional elements or steps of “processor” and/or “memory/memories”. The “processor” and/or “memory/memories” are each directed to a computer components and generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose computer components (for example, a computer/processor and/or memory). The computer component(s) are recited at a high level of generality and they merely automate the evaluation/determination step (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
The claims recite additional elements or steps of “obtain first map information”. The “obtain first map information… and position information indicating a position of a target object relative to at least a portion of reference objects in the first at least one reference object” limitation is recited at a high level of generality (for example, as a general means of gathering environmental/object data for use in the evaluation/determination, step) and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity).
Additionally, there is no technical improvement to map information systems because the alleged improvement of providing universality across different map vendors based on relative position expression is considered to be “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48). In this case, the claims appear to be directed to gathering data using conventional techniques to provide the universality across different map vendors without reciting, for example, any particular algorithm steps/structures to implement the technical solution so that the additional elements integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Additionally, there is no claimed specific solution to a specific technical problem because the alleged improvement of providing universality across different map vendors based on relative position expression is considered to be providing “only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it"” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44).
Additionally, there is no claimed solution in a meaningful way because the alleged improvement of providing universality across different map vendors based on relative position expression is considered to be merely extra-solution activity and thus not a particular solution treatment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) Whether The Limitation(s) Are Merely Extra-Solution Activity Or A Field Of Use).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are directed to the mental process.
Eligibility Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims relating to the computer component(s) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic or general-purpose computer component(s), and that analysis similarly applies in Step 2B.
Regarding the insignificant extra-solution activity/activities identified in Step 2A Prong Two, the “obtain first map information… and position information indicating a position of a target object relative to at least a portion of reference objects in the first at least one reference object” limitation for transmitting and/or receiving data was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity/activities (in this case, pre-solution activity) in Step 2A. The claimed transmission and/or receipt of data as a pre-solution activity is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) function when it is claimed in a generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 121 USPQ2d 1928 (Fed. Cir. 2017); “But receiving transmitted data over a network and displaying it to a user merely implicates purely conventional activities that are the "most basic functions of a computer." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359.”).
Accordingly, when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not contribute an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent Claims:
In general, regarding dependent claims 14-27, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to become patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception (or further refine/characterize 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 than the abstract idea.
Specifically, claims 14-23 and 27-28 recite limitations that are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception (or further refine/characterize the judicial exception).
Claims 24-26 also recite limitations that are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception (or further refine/characterize the judicial exception), and the claims also recite limitations that are directed towards well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) additional elements. Specifically, the claims recite the additional elements or steps of a “obtain the first map information by receiving a plurality of data packets” and/or “displaying” position information. The transmitting and/or receiving of data are insignificant extra-solution activity/activities (pre-solution activity) while the outputting of data is insignificant extra-solution activity/activities (post-solution activity). The claimed transmission and/or receipt of data as a pre-solution activity and the outputting of data as post-solution activity are activities that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) functions when they are claimed in a generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 121 USPQ2d 1928 (Fed. Cir. 2017); “But receiving transmitted data over a network and displaying it to a user merely implicates purely conventional activities that are the "most basic functions of a computer." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359.”).
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 13 and 30.
Thus, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 13-21 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al. US10839679 in view of Elimaleh et al. US_20230005374 and Nakamura et al. US20080240505 .
Regarding independent claim 13, Tsuda discloses, in Figures 1-12,
A map information use apparatus (Tsuda; Fig. 1; autonomous travel assistance system that comprises roadside device 312), comprising: at least one processor (Tsuda; processor 901); and one or more memories (Tsuda; memory 902) coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to: obtain first map information (Tsuda; map data 290 of map database 200), wherein the first map information comprises information about a first reference object set that comprises a first at least one reference object (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “B”) in a geographic area, and the information about the first reference object set indicates a first identifier of each reference object in the first at least one reference object, and the first identifier indicates a first position of each reference object in the first at least one reference object; and determine target position information of a target object (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “A”) based on the first map information, wherein the target position information indicates a position of the target object, and the target object is an element or an event on a map (Tsuda; Fig. 8; shows map with the positions of vehicles “A”, “B”, and “C”).
Tsuda does not teach obtaining position information indicating a position of a target object relative to at least a portion of reference objects in the first at least one reference object; and wherein the information about the first reference object set further indicates at least one of: (1) a type of each reference object selected based on one or more of a generality principle, a stability principle, a deterministic principle, or a precision principle, wherein the type indicates a manner in which the reference object is selected from map elements, or (2) a priority of each reference object indicating a degree of compliance between the reference object and a preset reference point selection principle.
Elimaleh teaches obtaining position information indicating a position of a target object (Elimaleh; vehicle 2720) relative (Elimaleh; [0344] “the positions may be determined relative to host vehicle 2710”; [0344] “tracked and analzyed… to determine the kinematic information”) to at least a portion of reference objects in the first at least one reference object (Elimaleh; host vehicle 2710).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the obtaining information as taught by Tsuda to include relative position information of the target object relative to the reference object as taught by Elimaleh for the purpose of tracking and analyzing kinematic information of the target object (Elimaleh; [0344] “tracked and analzyed… to determine the kinematic information”).
Modified Tsuda does not teach and wherein the information about the first reference object set further indicates at least one of: (1) a type of each reference object selected based on one or more of a generality principle, a stability principle, a deterministic principle, or a precision principle, wherein the type indicates a manner in which the reference object is selected from map elements, or (2) a priority of each reference object indicating a degree of compliance between the reference object and a preset reference point selection principle.
Nakamura teaches wherein the information about the first reference object set further indicates at least one of: (1) a type of each reference object selected based on one or more of a generality principle, wherein the type indicates a manner in which the reference object is selected from map elements (Nakamura; [0029-0034] the combination of map database DB1 and feature database DB2; [0032]; “Features associated with such road markings include, for example, pedestrian crossings, stop lines”; [0033] “the feature position information includes information for the position (coordinates) on the map”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the information as taught by Modified Tsuda to include a type of each reference object selected based a generality principle as taught by Nakamura for the purpose of collecting information to improve vehicle navigation.
Regarding claim 14, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the information about the first reference object set (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “B”) further indicates at least one of: current version information; previous version information; an update status of each reference object (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “B”; the sequence of Fig. 8a-8c shows the updated position status of vehicle “B”); position precision of each reference object; confidence of each reference object; a map element associated with each reference object; or an identifier of the geographic area.
Regarding claim 15, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor (Tsuda; processor 901) to: receive second map information, wherein the second map information comprises information about a second reference object set that comprises a second at least one reference object (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “C”), and the information about the second reference object set indicates a second identifier of each reference object in the second at least one reference object, and the second identifier indicates a second position of each reference object in the second at least one reference object; generate the information about the first reference object set (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “B”) based on the information about the second reference object set (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “C”); and generate the first map information based on the information about the first reference object set (Tsuda; Fig. 8; the sequence of Fig. 8a-8c shows the updated position status of vehicles “A”, “B”, and “C” relative to each other and making positional adjustments to allow the merging of vehicle “A” between vehicles “B” and “C”).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the first map information further comprises association indication information indicating that the first map information is generated based on the second map information (Tsuda; Fig. 8; the sequence of Fig. 8a-8c shows the updated position status of vehicles “A”, “B”, and “C” relative to each other and making positional adjustments to allow the merging of vehicle “A” between vehicles “B” and “C”).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor (Tsuda; processor 901) to: select at least a portion of reference objects from the second at least one reference object (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “C”) as the first at least one reference object (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “B”).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor (Tsuda; processor 901) to: perform coordinate calculation (Tsuda; step S130 calculation) on at least a portion of reference objects in the second at least one reference object based on a preset rule (Tsuda; col. 7:32-38 perform calculations to assist with vehicle merging; col. 7:47-49 the preset rule or goal is to avoid vehicle collisions); and determine the first at least one reference object based on a result of the coordinate calculation (Tsuda; Fig. 8; the sequence of Fig. 8a-8c shows the updated position status of vehicles “A”, “B”, and “C” relative to each other and making positional adjustments to allow the merging of vehicle “A” between vehicles “B” and “C”).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor (Tsuda; processor 901) to: perform coordinate calculation (Tsuda; step S130 calculation) on at least a portion of reference objects in the second at least one reference object based on a preset rule (Tsuda; col. 7:32-38 perform calculations to assist with vehicle merging; col. 7:47-49 the preset rule or goal is to avoid vehicle collisions); and determine the first at least one reference object based on a result of the coordinate calculation (Tsuda; Fig. 8; the sequence of Fig. 8a-8c shows the updated position status of vehicles “A”, “B”, and “C” relative to each other and making positional adjustments to allow the merging of vehicle “A” between vehicles “B” and “C”).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor (Tsuda; processor 901) to: determine a change of the information about the second reference object set; and update the information about the first reference object set based on the change of the information about the second reference object set (Tsuda; Fig. 8; col. 7:14-15 “change in positions”).
Regarding claim 21, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor (Tsuda; processor 901) to: select a target reference object (Tsuda; position reference point 313) from the first at least one reference object; obtain initial position information of the target object based on an initial reference object different from the target reference object; and convert the initial position information into the target position information based on a position relationship between the target reference object and the initial reference object (Tsuda; Fig. 6-7; col. 7:22-31).
Regarding independent claim 30, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above with respect to independent claim 13.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda in view of Elimaleh et al. US_20230005374 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Miksa et al. US9052207.
Regarding claim 22, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the first map information (Tsuda; map data 290 of map database 200) further comprises position information indicating a position of the target object (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “A”), the position information is based on a third at least one reference object comprised in the first reference object set, the information about the first reference object set comprises information about a third reference object set, and the information about the third reference object set indicates a third identifier of each reference object in the third at least one reference object in the geographic area and a third position of each reference object in the third at least one reference object; and wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor (Tsuda; processor 901) to: determine the target position information based on the position information and the information about the third reference object set.
Modified Tsuda is silent regarding a third at least one reference object comprised in the first reference object set, the information about the first reference object set comprises information about a third reference object set, and the information about the third reference object set indicates a third identifier of each reference object in the third at least one reference object in the geographic area and a third position of each reference object in the third at least one reference object; and to: determine the target position information based on the position information and the information about the third reference object set.
Miksa teaches a third at least one reference object comprised in the first reference object set, the information about the first reference object set comprises information about a third reference object set, and the information about the third reference object set indicates a third identifier of each reference object in the third at least one reference object in the geographic area and a third position of each reference object in the third at least one reference object; and to: determine the target position information based on the position information and the information about the third reference object set (Miksa; Fig. 11-12; three objects 408 in which the third object 408 is analogous to the third at least one reference object with corresponding third identifier and third position).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the target position information determination as taught by Modified Tsuda to include the third at least one reference object as taught by Miksa for the purpose of providing “relevant information for lane guidance as well as positioning applications” (Miksa; col. 16:14-18).
Regarding claim 23, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the first map information (Tsuda; map data 290 of map database 200) comprises a plurality of pieces of position information (Tsuda; Fig. 8; shows map with the positions of vehicles “A”, “B”, and “C”), and the third at least one reference object comprises a plurality of reference objects (Miksa; Fig. 11-12; three objects 408 in which the third object 408 is analogous to the third at least one reference object with corresponding third identifier and third position), the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to: select a first reference object from the plurality of reference objects based on the information about the third reference object set; and select first position information from the plurality of pieces of position information as the target position information, wherein the first position information corresponds to the first reference object (Tsuda; Fig. 8; shows map with the positions of vehicles “A”, “B”, and “C”).
Regarding claim 24, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the information about the first reference object set (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “B”).
Modified Tsuda is silent regarding comprises information about a fourth reference object set that comprises a fourth at least one reference object in the geographic area and information about a fifth reference object set that comprises a fifth at least one reference object in the geographic area, the information about the fourth reference object set indicates the first identifier of each reference object in a fourth at least one reference object and indicates the first position of each reference object in the fourth at least one reference object, the information about the fifth reference object set indicates the first identifier of each reference object in a fifth at least one reference object and indicates the first position of each reference object in the fifth at least one reference object, and the first at least one reference object comprises the fourth at least one reference object and the fifth at least one reference object; and wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to: obtain the first map information by receiving a plurality of data packets, wherein the information about the fourth reference object set and the information about the fifth reference object set are comprised in different data packets.
Miksa teaches comprises information about a fourth reference object set (Miksa; Fig. 12; col. 18:39-42 adding dynamic objects 414) that comprises a fourth at least one reference object in the geographic area and information about a fifth reference object set that comprises a fifth at least one reference object in the geographic area, the information about the fourth reference object set indicates the first identifier of each reference object in a fourth at least one reference object and indicates the first position of each reference object in the fourth at least one reference object, the information about the fifth reference object set indicates the first identifier of each reference object in a fifth at least one reference object and indicates the first position of each reference object in the fifth at least one reference object, and the first at least one reference object comprises the fourth at least one reference object and the fifth at least one reference object; and wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to: obtain the first map information by receiving a plurality of data packets, wherein the information about the fourth reference object set and the information about the fifth reference object set are comprised in different data packets (Miksa; Fig. 12; col. 18:39-42 adding dynamic objects 414).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first reference object set as taught by Modified Tsuda to include the fourth and fifth reference objects as taught by Miksa for the purpose of providing “relevant information for lane guidance as well as positioning applications” (Miksa; col. 16:14-18) as well as for providing “applications of dynamic content” (Miksa; col. 18:39-41).
Claim(s) 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda in view of Elimaleh et al. US_20230005374 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kakimaru US11973922.
Regarding claim 25, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the target object (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “A”) is an element or an event on a map (Tsuda; map data 290 of map database 200), the target position information comprises second position information and third position information, the first reference object set comprises a second reference object and a third reference object, the second position information indicates a position of a vehicle relative to the second reference object, and the third position information indicates a position of the vehicle relative to the third reference object; and wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to: determine that a distance between the third reference object and the vehicle is less than a distance between the second reference object and the vehicle (Tsuda; Fig. 8; the sequence of Fig. 8a-8c shows the updated position status of vehicles “A”, “B”, and “C” relative to each other and making positional adjustments to allow the merging of vehicle “A” between vehicles “B” and “C”).
Modified Tsuda does not disclose replace displaying the second position information with displaying the third position information, or replacing performing assisted driving decision-making based on the second position information with performing assisted driving decision-making based on the third position information.
Kakimaru teaches replace displaying the second position information with displaying the third position information (Kakimaru; steps ST20-ST21 with replacing the display to generate a preferred image for the driver/operator/user), or replacing performing assisted driving decision-making based on the second position information with performing assisted driving decision-making based on the third position information.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the management of information as taught by Modified Tsuda to include the display replacement step as taught by Kakimaru for the purpose of providing a more appropriate image for the driver/operator/user to have a better understanding of the driving condition/scenario (Kakimaru; col. 13:66-67 to col. 14:1-3).
Regarding claim 26, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the target object (Tsuda; Fig. 8; vehicle “A”) is an element or an event on a map (Tsuda; map data 290 of map database 200), the target position information comprises second position information and third position information, the first reference object set comprises a second reference object and a third reference object, the second position information indicates a position of a vehicle relative to the second reference object, and the third position information indicates a position of the vehicle relative to the third reference object; and wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to: determine that the third reference object is better than the second reference object based on the information about the first reference object set (Tsuda; Fig. 8; the sequence of Fig. 8a-8c shows the updated position status of vehicles “A”, “B”, and “C” relative to each other and making positional adjustments to allow the merging of vehicle “A” between vehicles “B” and “C”).
Modified Tsuda does not disclose replace displaying the second position information with displaying the third position information, or replacing performing assisted driving decision-making based on the second position information with performing assisted driving decision-making based on the third position information.
Kakimaru teaches replace displaying the second position information with displaying the third position information (Kakimaru; steps ST20-ST21 with replacing the display to generate a preferred image for the driver/operator/user), or replacing performing assisted driving decision-making based on the second position information with performing assisted driving decision-making based on the third position information.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the management of information as taught by Modified Tsuda to include the display replacement step as taught by Kakimaru for the purpose of providing a more appropriate image for the driver/operator/user to have a better understanding of the driving condition/scenario (Kakimaru; col. 13:66-67 to col. 14:1-3).
Regarding claim 27, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 26, wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to: determine that the third reference object is better than the second reference object when the information about the first reference object set satisfies at least one of: a priority of the third reference object is higher than a priority of the second reference object (Tsuda; Fig. 8; the sequence of Fig. 8a-8c shows the updated position status of vehicles “A”, “B”, and “C” relative to each other and making positional adjustments to allow the merging of vehicle “A” between vehicles “B” and “C”); position precision of the third reference object is higher than position precision of the second reference object; confidence of the third reference object is higher than confidence of the second reference object; or a distance between the third reference object and the vehicle is less than a distance between the second reference object and the vehicle.
Regarding claim 28, Modified Tsuda teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus according to claim 25, wherein the programming instructions are for execution by the at least one processor to: determine that a vehicle speed of the vehicle is less than a threshold (Tsuda; col. 7:32-38 making vehicle speed adjustments according to rules/thresholds to avoid collisions).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 4/30/26
Prosecution Insights