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 .
This is a Final Action on the Merits. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 14, and 16-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 30th, 2026 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3 have been amended Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 8-9, 11-13, and 15 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The applicant states (Amend. 7) that claim 17 has not been expressly identified or separately addressed in the Office Action’s statement of rejections. However, in the Response to Election / Restriction Filed on February 25th, 2026 the applicant elected Group D Species I, which corresponds to claim 16. Therefore, Group D Species II, which corresponds to claim 17, was withdrawn from consideration.
The previous claim objections of claims 1, 3-7, 10, 14, and 16-20 have been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments. The previous contingent limitation of claim 1 has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 10, 14, and 16-20 under 35 USC 101 has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-7, 10, 14, and 16-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated grounds of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a target information collation unit that collates” in at least claim 1
“a quality determination unit that determines” in at least claim 1
“a determination result transmission unit that transmits” in at least claim 1
“a validity determination unit that determines” in at least claim 1
“a validity control unit that permits” in at least claim 1
“a determination result reception unit that receives” in at least claim 18
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The published specification provides corresponding structure for the above claimed limitations in at least paragraphs 60 and 80.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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, 3-7, 10, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto (US 20210180959 A1) (“Muto”) in view of Nayhouse (US 20220340160 A1) (“Nayhouse”) in view of Yoshida (JPH 08263783 A) (“Yoshida”) (Translation Attached).
With respect to claim 1, Muto teaches A map data delivery system in which map data is delivered from a map data delivery apparatus to an onboard apparatus, the map data delivery system comprising:
a target information collation unit that collates target information of a target object included in the map data and target information of a target object acquired by an autonomous sensor mounted in a vehicle on a per-target basis (See at least Muto Paragraph FIGS. 1-4 and Paragraphs 24-29 “As shown in FIG. 2, in the map generation system 1, the road information providing vehicle 30 acquires road information, for example, from an image detected by the road information acquisition unit of the road information providing vehicle 30 (S101). The road condition includes not only road information on a road on which the vehicle travels but also a condition of a roadside strip and information on features such as a road sign, a bridge, a station, and a store, landmarks, and the like … Map coordinate data on a road and a feature and information on a change in feature are detected from an official map distributed to the road information providing vehicle 30 and a difference between route information generated from the official map and a road condition acquired by the sensors such as a camera. The map coordinate data and the feature change information are transmitted to the server 10 (S101). The above process performed in the road information providing vehicle 30 may be performed while assisted driving or automatic driving (hereinafter referred to as assisted driving or the like) of the vehicle is performed or while no assisted driving or the like is performed. When no assisted driving or the like is performed, operation such as generation of a route based on the official map described above is performed in the background of operation of the assisted driving control unit”);
a quality determination unit that determines quality of the map data based on the collation result regarding the target information; a determination result transmission unit that transmits a determination result regarding the quality of the map data to the map data delivery apparatus (See at least Muto Paragraph FIGS. 1-4 and Paragraphs 35-36 “Next, the map quality determination unit 21 d determines quality of the temporary map (S106). The quality of the temporary map is determined on the basis of whether the difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information is a predetermined value or less. When the difference amount A is the predetermined value or less, the quality of the temporary map is determined to be acceptable, and when the difference amount A exceeds the predetermined value, the quality of the temporary map is determined to be unacceptable. The in-vehicle device 20 transmits a quality determination result of the temporary map to the server 10 (S106). At this time, the difference map information and coordinate data on the portion provided with QA=1 may be transmitted to the server 10. When the quality of the temporary map is acceptable, in the server 10 that has acquired the quality determination result of the temporary map, the quality check result reflection unit 11 b updates an official map using the temporary map (S107). Furthermore, the quality check result reflection unit 11 b transmits a signal for updating an official map using the temporary map to the in-vehicle device 20 of the verification vehicle without transmitting official map data to the in-vehicle device 20 of the verification vehicle (S107). In the in-vehicle device 20 that has received the signal for updating an official map using the temporary map, the official map is updated to be the temporally map. At this time, in the in-vehicle device 20, an official map may be updated using the temporary map by reflecting the map coordinate data on the portion of the temporary map for which the quality determination result is QA=1.”);
to not transmit determination results for good quality of the map data to the map data delivery apparatus and transmit only determination results for poor quality of the map data to the map data delivery apparatus (See at least Muto Paragraph FIGS. 1-4 and Paragraphs 47-59 “Next, the road information providing vehicle 30 determines quality of the official map from the difference amounts C and D (S307). With regard to the quality of the official map, the difference amounts C and D exceeding a predetermined value mean that the quality is deteriorated, that is, the feature information or the like in the official map has changed after distribution of the official map and no longer matches the actual features. In this case, the quality of the official map is determined to be unacceptable. When the quality of the official map is unacceptable, the road information providing vehicle 30 transmits, to the server 10, map coordinate data on a changed portion and feature change information which is information on a change in feature. Thus, when the quality of the official map is evaluated to be unacceptable, map coordinate data on a changed portion and feature change information are transmitted from the plurality of road information providing vehicles 30 to the server 10, and are sequentially accumulated in the server 10. When a predetermined number of pieces of map coordinate data on a changed portion and feature change information are accumulated, as shown at S102 in FIG. 2 or 3, the server 10 generates a temporary map … When the quality determination result of the temporary map at S106 indicates that the quality of the temporary map is unacceptable, a determination result indicating that the quality determination result of the temporary map is unacceptable is transmitted to the server 10, and the quality check result reflection unit 11 b of the server 10 that has received the determination result does not transmit a signal for causing the temporary map to be an official map to the in-vehicle device 20. In this case, the map generation unit 11 a of the server 10 generates again a temporary map taking into consideration newly accumulated map coordinate data and feature change information, and through the processing flow shown in FIG. 2 or 3, the in-vehicle device 20 performs verification of the temporary map and determination of quality of the temporary map. In verification of the official map by the road information providing vehicle 30, when a driver, i.e., an occupant in the driver's seat operates the steering wheel, that is, when the occupant in the driver's seat intervenes in operation while steering operation or the like is being automatically controlled according to the road condition acquired by the sensors such as a camera and the first route information estimated on the basis of the distributed official map, the road information providing vehicle 30 may provide to the server 10 a report on a gap between the actual road condition and the official map data, associated with position information. In this case, the server 10 generates and distributes a new temporary map on the basis of the report from the road information providing vehicle 30 … When the verification vehicle that has received a temporary map verifies the temporary map and the verification result is good, the verification vehicle may use the temporary map for control of assisted driving, automatic driving, or the like without reporting the verification result to the server. The verification vehicle may report to the server only when the verification result of the temporary map is poor. Furthermore, the server may determine that the verification result of the temporary map is good on the basis of the fact that the server does not receive a poor verification result during a predetermined verification period. … When the quality of the temporary map is acceptable, to a vehicle to which the temporary map has already been distributed, instead of transmitting updated official map data from the server 10 to the in-vehicle device 20, the server 10 transmits a signal for updating the official data that has already been distributed to the in-vehicle device 20 to an official map. Thus, unnecessary data is not transmitted from the server 10 to the in-vehicle device 20, leading to a reduction in the amount of data to be transmitted. This makes it possible for the in-vehicle device 20 to promptly acquire an official map. Furthermore, the amount of data communicated in the radio communication network 40 can be reduced; thus, for example, delay in communication in the entire radio communication network 40 can be avoided.”).
Muto, however, fails to explicitly disclose that a validity determination unit that determines validity of the map data based on the determination result regarding the quality of the map data; and a validity control unit that permits validity of the map data in response to the map data being determined to be valid; to determine that a predetermined condition is established in response to the map data delivery apparatus identifying that a frequency of determination results for poor quality of the map data is equal to or greater than a threshold; in response to determining that the predetermined condition is not established, not transmit determination results for good quality of the map data to the map data delivery apparatus and transmit only determination results for poor quality of the map data to the map data delivery apparatus; and in response to determining that the predetermined condition is established, transmit the determination results for good quality of the map data and the determination results for poor quality to the map data delivery apparatus.
Nayhouse teaches to determine that a predetermined condition is established in response to the map data delivery apparatus identifying that a frequency of determination results for poor quality of the map data is equal to or greater than a threshold and in response to determining that the predetermined condition is established, transmit the determination results for good quality of the map data and the determination results for poor quality to the map data delivery apparatus (See at least Nayhouse Paragraphs 63-64 “If so [624:YES], then the overall quality of the map is determined in 626. The map may be considered to be of a good quality, an acceptable quality, a satisfactory quality and/or a validated quality when, for example, the vehicle traversed all the lane(s) that were tested without experiencing any faults of given types or a minimal number of faults of the given type (e.g., less than X minor issues occur, where X is a threshold value determined based on historical data, and zero major or critical issues occur) and/or without having to perform a dangerous and/or emergency maneuver. The map is considered to be of a bad quality, an unacceptable quality, an unsatisfactory quality and/or invalidated quality when, for example, the vehicle was unable to traverse at least one of the lane(s) that were tested, experienced one or more faults of given types (e.g., more than or equal to X minor issues occur, where X is a threshold value determined based on historical data, and/or if any major or critical issues occur), and/or performed one or more emergency operations (e.g., swerved, took a sharp turn into traffic, and/or performed an emergency maneuver to avoid an obstacle). A report and/or other information may be published in 626 indicating the determined overall quality of the map and/or quality of the lane(s).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Muto to determine that a predetermined condition is established in response to the map data delivery apparatus identifying that a frequency of determination results for poor quality of the map data is equal to or greater than a threshold and in response to determining that the predetermined condition is established, transmit the determination results for good quality of the map data and the determination results for poor quality to the map data delivery apparatus, as taught by Nayhouse as disclosed above, such that, the determination result transmission unit does not transmit determination results for good quality of the map data to the map data delivery apparatus and transmit only determination results for poor quality of the map data to the map data delivery apparatus in response to determining that the predetermined condition is not established, in order to ensure optimal map data is transmitted (Nayhouse Paragraph 4 “The present disclosure concerns implementing systems and methods for map quality assurance and/or vehicle control”).
Muto in view of Nayhouse, however, fails to explicitly disclose that a validity determination unit that determines validity of the map data based on the determination result regarding the quality of the map data; and a validity control unit that permits validity of the map data in response to the map data being determined to be valid.
Yoshida teaches a validity determination unit that determines validity of the map data based on the determination result regarding the quality of the map data; and a validity control unit that permits validity of the map data in response to the map data being determined to be valid (See at least Yoshida Paragraphs 107-110 “FIG. 18 shows a processing procedure for traffic information, weather information, etc. by the center computer 50. The traffic information, weather information, and the like stored in the vehicle information area are classified for each area where the vehicle that transmitted them is present (step 121), and the information is judged for each area (step 122). For example, accident information sent from a vehicle includes a lane, a distance, a direction, a scale, a position of the vehicle, a time at which the distance is input, and a vehicle speed. Assuming a certain point in time, establish a reference point in the area. From the data of the lane, the position of the vehicle, the time of the vehicle, and the vehicle speed sent from the vehicle, the position (with reference to the reference point) of the vehicle at the reference time is calculated. The approximate position where the accident has occurred is calculated from the calculated position, distance, direction, and lane data. When information is obtained from a plurality of vehicles in one area, an average value of the positions of the accident sites calculated based on the information from each vehicle is calculated, and the position of the accident is determined. The scale of the accident is determined according to the principle of majority vote. The accident information determined in this way is transmitted from the center 9 to each vehicle through the area relay device 4 (in the case of global information, through a plurality of area relay devices). In each vehicle, accident information is displayed on the display device 25 of the vehicle-mounted device 3. When the driver desires to display the accident information, the driver selects the information notification mode by the touch switch 31E, and then selects information on the accident by the touch switch 31A. However, when it is absolutely necessary to inform the driver of a serious accident, it may be automatically displayed without operating the touch switch. The location of the accident site will preferably be represented on the map displayed on the display device 25 by appropriate marks or characters, symbols, etc. Or, using the place name, building name, intersection point name, etc. on the map as a reference, the message “A medium-scale accident has occurred at a location approximately XXm upstream from the XX intersection” is displayed on the display device 25. May be displayed. A display example will be described later.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Muto in view of Nayhouse to include that a validity determination unit that determines validity of the map data based on the determination result regarding the quality of the map data; and a validity control unit that permits validity of the map data in response to the map data being determined to be valid, as taught by Yoshida as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal map data is transmitted (Yoshida Paragraph 1 “The present invention relates to a traffic information system for notifying vehicles traveling on a road of traffic information including traffic jam information, accident information, weather information and the like”).
With respect to claim 3, Muto in view of Nayhouse in view of Yoshida teach that the target information collation unit collates, with map data for provisional validity before formal validity as a collation target object, the target information of a target object included in the map data for provisional validity and target information of a target object acquired by the autonomous sensor on a per-target basis, and the validity control unit permits start of formal validity of the map data in response to the map data for provisional validity being determined to be valid (See at least Yoshida Paragraphs 107-110 “FIG. 18 shows a processing procedure for traffic information, weather information, etc. by the center computer 50. The traffic information, weather information, and the like stored in the vehicle information area are classified for each area where the vehicle that transmitted them is present (step 121), and the information is judged for each area (step 122). For example, accident information sent from a vehicle includes a lane, a distance, a direction, a scale, a position of the vehicle, a time at which the distance is input, and a vehicle speed. Assuming a certain point in time, establish a reference point in the area. From the data of the lane, the position of the vehicle, the time of the vehicle, and the vehicle speed sent from the vehicle, the position (with reference to the reference point) of the vehicle at the reference time is calculated. The approximate position where the accident has occurred is calculated from the calculated position, distance, direction, and lane data. When information is obtained from a plurality of vehicles in one area, an average value of the positions of the accident sites calculated based on the information from each vehicle is calculated, and the position of the accident is determined. The scale of the accident is determined according to the principle of majority vote. The accident information determined in this way is transmitted from the center 9 to each vehicle through the area relay device 4 (in the case of global information, through a plurality of area relay devices). In each vehicle, accident information is displayed on the display device 25 of the vehicle-mounted device 3. When the driver desires to display the accident information, the driver selects the information notification mode by the touch switch 31E, and then selects information on the accident by the touch switch 31A. However, when it is absolutely necessary to inform the driver of a serious accident, it may be automatically displayed without operating the touch switch. The location of the accident site will preferably be represented on the map displayed on the display device 25 by appropriate marks or characters, symbols, etc. Or, using the place name, building name, intersection point name, etc. on the map as a reference, the message “A medium-scale accident has occurred at a location approximately XXm upstream from the XX intersection” is displayed on the display device 25. May be displayed. A display example will be described later.”).
With respect to claim 4, Muto in view of Nayhouse in view of Yoshida teach that the validity control unit suppresses the start of formal validity of the map data in response to the map data being determined to be not valid (See at least Muto Paragraphs 50-51 “Thus, a cycle of generation of a temporary map→verification of the temporary map→update and distribution of an official map→verification of the official map→generation of a temporary map is appropriately performed, thereby maintaining freshness of the official map. When the quality determination result of the temporary map at S106 indicates that the quality of the temporary map is unacceptable, a determination result indicating that the quality determination result of the temporary map is unacceptable is transmitted to the server 10, and the quality check result reflection unit 11 b of the server 10 that has received the determination result does not transmit a signal for causing the temporary map to be an official map to the in-vehicle device 20. In this case, the map generation unit 11 a of the server 10 generates again a temporary map taking into consideration newly accumulated map coordinate data and feature change information, and through the processing flow shown in FIG. 2 or 3, the in-vehicle device 20 performs verification of the temporary map and determination of quality of the temporary map.”).
With respect to claim 5, Muto in view of Nayhouse in view of Yoshida teach that the target information collation unit collates, with map data for actual validity after formal validity as a collation target object, the target information of a target object included in the map data for actual validity and the target information of a target object acquired by the autonomous sensor on a per-target basis; and the validity control unit permits continuation of formal validity of the map data in response to the map data for actual validity being determined to be valid (See at least Muto Paragraph 59 “When the quality of the temporary map is acceptable, to a vehicle to which the temporary map has already been distributed, instead of transmitting updated official map data from the server 10 to the in-vehicle device 20, the server 10 transmits a signal for updating the official data that has already been distributed to the in-vehicle device 20 to an official map. Thus, unnecessary data is not transmitted from the server 10 to the in-vehicle device 20, leading to a reduction in the amount of data to be transmitted. This makes it possible for the in-vehicle device 20 to promptly acquire an official map. Furthermore, the amount of data communicated in the radio communication network 40 can be reduced; thus, for example, delay in communication in the entire radio communication network 40 can be avoided.”).
With respect to claim 6, Muto in view of Nayhouse in view of Yoshida teach that the validity control unit suppresses continuation of formal validity of the map data in response to the map data being determined to be not valid. (See at least Muto Paragraphs 50-51 “Thus, a cycle of generation of a temporary map→verification of the temporary map→update and distribution of an official map→verification of the official map→generation of a temporary map is appropriately performed, thereby maintaining freshness of the official map. When the quality determination result of the temporary map at S106 indicates that the quality of the temporary map is unacceptable, a determination result indicating that the quality determination result of the temporary map is unacceptable is transmitted to the server 10, and the quality check result reflection unit 11 b of the server 10 that has received the determination result does not transmit a signal for causing the temporary map to be an official map to the in-vehicle device 20. In this case, the map generation unit 11 a of the server 10 generates again a temporary map taking into consideration newly accumulated map coordinate data and feature change information, and through the processing flow shown in FIG. 2 or 3, the in-vehicle device 20 performs verification of the temporary map and determination of quality of the temporary map.”).
With respect to claim 7, Muto in view of Nayhouse in view of Yoshida teach that the validity determination unit determines, as the validity of the map data, deliverability of the map data from the map data delivery apparatus to the onboard apparatus; and the validity control unit permits delivery of the map data from the map data delivery apparatus to the onboard apparatus in response to the map data being determined to be deliverable (See at least Muto Paragraph 48 “Thus, when the quality of the official map is evaluated to be unacceptable, map coordinate data on a changed portion and feature change information are transmitted from the plurality of road information providing vehicles 30 to the server 10, and are sequentially accumulated in the server 10. When a predetermined number of pieces of map coordinate data on a changed portion and feature change information are accumulated, as shown at S102 in FIG. 2 or 3, the server 10 generates a temporary map.”) (See at least Yoshida Paragraph 109 “ For example, accident information sent from a vehicle includes a lane, a distance, a direction, a scale, a position of the vehicle, a time at which the distance is input, and a vehicle speed. Assuming a certain point in time, establish a reference point in the area. From the data of the lane, the position of the vehicle, the time of the vehicle, and the vehicle speed sent from the vehicle, the position (with reference to the reference point) of the vehicle at the reference time is calculated. The approximate position where the accident has occurred is calculated from the calculated position, distance, direction, and lane data. When information is obtained from a plurality of vehicles in one area, an average value of the positions of the accident sites calculated based on the information from each vehicle is calculated, and the position of the accident is determined. The scale of the accident is determined according to the principle of majority vote.”).
With respect to claim 10, Muto in view of Nayhouse in view of Yoshida teach that the determination result transmission unit transmits, to the map data delivery apparatus, at least any one of information related to a determination target information related to a calculation result calculated during a process of determination, information related to vehicle control, and information related to surrounding environment, in addition to the determination result regarding the quality of the map data (See at least Muto Paragraph 51 “When the quality determination result of the temporary map at S106 indicates that the quality of the temporary map is unacceptable, a determination result indicating that the quality determination result of the temporary map is unacceptable is transmitted to the server 10, and the quality check result reflection unit 11 b of the server 10 that has received the determination result does not transmit a signal for causing the temporary map to be an official map to the in-vehicle device 20. In this case, the map generation unit 11 a of the server 10 generates again a temporary map taking into consideration newly accumulated map coordinate data and feature change information, and through the processing flow shown in FIG. 2 or 3, the in-vehicle device 20 performs verification of the temporary map and determination of quality of the temporary map.”).
With respect to claim 14, Muto in view of Nayhouse in view of Yoshida teach that the target information collation unit collates, with map data for provisional validity before formal validity as a collation target object, the target information of a target object included in the map data for provisional validity and target information of a target object acquired by the autonomous sensor on a per-target basis, and the validity control unit permits start of formal validity of the map data in response to the map data for provisional validity being determined to be valid (See at least Yoshida Paragraphs 107-110 “FIG. 18 shows a processing procedure for traffic information, weather information, etc. by the center computer 50. The traffic information, weather information, and the like stored in the vehicle information area are classified for each area where the vehicle that transmitted them is present (step 121), and the information is judged for each area (step 122). For example, accident information sent from a vehicle includes a lane, a distance, a direction, a scale, a position of the vehicle, a time at which the distance is input, and a vehicle speed. Assuming a certain point in time, establish a reference point in the area. From the data of the lane, the position of the vehicle, the time of the vehicle, and the vehicle speed sent from the vehicle, the position (with reference to the reference point) of the vehicle at the reference time is calculated. The approximate position where the accident has occurred is calculated from the calculated position, distance, direction, and lane data. When information is obtained from a plurality of vehicles in one area, an average value of the positions of the accident sites calculated based on the information from each vehicle is calculated, and the position of the accident is determined. The scale of the accident is determined according to the principle of majority vote. The accident information determined in this way is transmitted from the center 9 to each vehicle through the area relay device 4 (in the case of global information, through a plurality of area relay devices). In each vehicle, accident information is displayed on the display device 25 of the vehicle-mounted device 3. When the driver desires to display the accident information, the driver selects the information notification mode by the touch switch 31E, and then selects information on the accident by the touch switch 31A. However, when it is absolutely necessary to inform the driver of a serious accident, it may be automatically displayed without operating the touch switch. The location of the accident site will preferably be represented on the map displayed on the display device 25 by appropriate marks or characters, symbols, etc. Or, using the place name, building name, intersection point name, etc. on the map as a reference, the message “A medium-scale accident has occurred at a location approximately XXm upstream from the XX intersection” is displayed on the display device 25. May be displayed. A display example will be described later.”).
With respect to claim 16, Muto in view of Nayhouse in view of Yoshida teach that the validity determination unit determines, as the validity of the map data, deliverability of the map data from the map data delivery apparatus to the onboard apparatus; and the validity control unit permits delivery of the map data from the map data delivery apparatus to the onboard apparatus in response to the map data being determined to be deliverable (See at least Muto Paragraph 48 “Thus, when the quality of the official map is evaluated to be unacceptable, map coordinate data on a changed portion and feature change information are transmitted from the plurality of road information providing vehicles 30 to the server 10, and are sequentially accumulated in the server 10. When a predetermined number of pieces of map coordinate data on a changed portion and feature change information are accumulated, as shown at S102 in FIG. 2 or 3, the server 10 generates a temporary map.”) (See at least Yoshida Paragraph 109 “ For example, accident information sent from a vehicle includes a lane, a distance, a direction, a scale, a position of the vehicle, a time at which the distance is input, and a vehicle speed. Assuming a certain point in time, establish a reference point in the area. From the data of the lane, the position of the vehicle, the time of the vehicle, and the vehicle speed sent from the vehicle, the position (with reference to the reference point) of the vehicle at the reference time is calculated. The approximate position where the accident has occurred is calculated from the calculated position, distance, direction, and lane data. When information is obtained from a plurality of vehicles in one area, an average value of the positions of the accident sites calculated based on the information from each vehicle is calculated, and the position of the accident is determined. The scale of the accident is determined according to the principle of majority vote.”).
With respect to claim 18, Muto in view of Nayhouse in view of Yoshida teach that the map data delivery apparatus includes a determination result reception unit that receives the determination result regarding the quality of the map data, the validity determination unit, and the validity control unit (See at least Muto Paragraph 59 “When the quality of the temporary map is acceptable, to a vehicle to which the temporary map has already been distributed, instead of transmitting updated official map data from the server 10 to the in-vehicle device 20, the server 10 transmits a signal for updating the official data that has already been distributed to the in-vehicle device 20 to an official map. Thus, unnecessary data is not transmitted from the server 10 to the in-vehicle device 20, leading to a reduction in the amount of data to be transmitted. This makes it possible for the in-vehicle device 20 to promptly acquire an official map. Furthermore, the amount of data communicated in the radio communication network 40 can be reduced; thus, for example, delay in communication in the entire radio communication network 40 can be avoided.”) (See at least Yoshida Paragraph 109 “ For example, accident information sent from a vehicle includes a lane, a distance, a direction, a scale, a position of the vehicle, a time at which the distance is input, and a vehicle speed. Assuming a certain point in time, establish a reference point in the area. From the data of the lane, the position of the vehicle, the time of the vehicle, and the vehicle speed sent from the vehicle, the position (with reference to the reference point) of the vehicle at the reference time is calculated. The approximate position where the accident has occurred is calculated from the calculated position, distance, direction, and lane data. When information is obtained from a plurality of vehicles in one area, an average value of the positions of the accident sites calculated based on the information from each vehicle is calculated, and the position of the accident is determined. The scale of the accident is determined according to the principle of majority vote.”).
With respect to claim 19, Muto in view of Nayhouse in view of Yoshida teach that the onboard apparatus includes a vehicle control unit that performs vehicle control based on a collation result for each attribute related to the target object (See at least Muto Paragraph 28 “The above process performed in the road information providing vehicle 30 may be performed while assisted driving or automatic driving (hereinafter referred to as assisted driving or the like) of the vehicle is performed or while no assisted driving or the like is performed. When no assisted driving or the like is performed, operation such as generation of a route based on the official map described above is performed in the background of operation of the assisted driving control unit.”).
With respect to claim 20, Muto in view of Nayhouse in view of Yoshida teach that the target information collation unit collates at least any of feature information on a feature, lane information on a lane, road information on a road, and tile information on a tile as the target information of a target object, on a per-target basis; and the quality determination unit determines the quality of the map data on at least any of a per-feature basis, a per-lane basis, a per-road basis, and a per-tile basis (See at least Muto Paragraphs 25-26 “The landmarks include, for example, traffic signals, poles, commercial signboards, stores, symbolic buildings such as historical buildings, road markings, and the like. The poles include streetlights, mirrors, utility poles, and the like. The road markings indicate markings painted on a road surface mainly for traffic control and traffic regulation. The road markings include, for example, lane boundary lines (e.g., division lines, lane marks) indicating a boundary between lanes, pedestrian crossings, stop lines, zebra zones, safety zones, regulation arrows, and the like. The road markings also include road studs such as chatter bars and Botts' dots. Furthermore, the landmarks may be signboards corresponding to traffic signs such as regulatory signs, guide signs, warning signs, and indication signs. The guide signs indicate direction signboards, signboards that display an area name, signboards that display a road name, advance notice signboards that provide advance notice of the entrance or exit of an expressway, a service area, or the like.”) (See at least Yoshida Paragraphs 107-110 “FIG. 18 shows a processing procedure for traffic information, weather information, etc. by the center computer 50. The traffic information, weather information, and the like stored in the vehicle information area are classified for each area where the vehicle that transmitted them is present (step 121), and the information is judged for each area (step 122). For example, accident information sent from a vehicle includes a lane, a distance, a direction, a scale, a position of the vehicle, a time at which the distance is input, and a vehicle speed. Assuming a certain point in time, establish a reference point in the area. From the data of the lane, the position of the vehicle, the time of the vehicle, and the vehicle speed sent from the vehicle, the position (with reference to the reference point) of the vehicle at the reference time is calculated. The approximate position where the accident has occurred is calculated from the calculated position, distance, direction, and lane data. When information is obtained from a plurality of vehicles in one area, an average value of the positions of the accident sites calculated based on the information from each vehicle is calculated, and the position of the accident is determined. The scale of the accident is determined according to the principle of majority vote. The accident information determined in this way is transmitted from the center 9 to each vehicle through the area relay device 4 (in the case of global information, through a plurality of area relay devices). In each vehicle, accident information is displayed on the display device 25 of the vehicle-mounted device 3. When the driver desires to display the accident information, the driver selects the information notification mode by the touch switch 31E, and then selects information on the accident by the touch switch 31A. However, when it is absolutely necessary to inform the driver of a serious accident, it may be automatically displayed without operating the touch switch. The location of the accident site will preferably be represented on the map displayed on the display device 25 by appropriate marks or characters, symbols, etc. Or, using the place name, building name, intersection point name, etc. on the map as a reference, the message “A medium-scale accident has occurred at a location approximately XXm upstream from the XX intersection” is displayed on the display device 25. May be displayed. A display example will be described later.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667 /KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights