DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended limitation of the key points being generated from collected sensor data is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere selection of a particular data source for manipulation. Examiner notes that a human mind would still be able to generate key points from images collected from vehicle cameras.
Additionally, the limitation of modifying an electronic map is additionally recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere post-solution output. The amendments lack any specification as to how the map modifications are performed or how the electronic map is implemented.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. §103 been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of further limiting amendments made to the claims, changing the scope of the claimed invention.
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively, for estimating a line for a boundary line. Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous independent claims, claims 8 and 15, are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
a processor;
a memory in communication with the processor, the memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
generate a graph from key points of a boundary lines, the key points being generated from sensor data collected by vehicles traveling on a road having the boundary line; and
determine a longest-shortest path within the graph, wherein the longest-shortest path is a longest possible shortest path among all pairs of key points of the boundary line and serving as an estimate of the boundary line; and
modify an electronic map to incorporate the line estimate of the boundary line.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitations of generating a graph, generating key points, and determining a longest-shortest path in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system comprising:
a processor;
a memory in communication with the processor, the memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
generate a graph from key points of a boundary lines, the key points being generated from sensor data collected by vehicles traveling on a road having the boundary line; and
determine a longest-shortest path within the graph, wherein the longest-shortest path is a longest possible shortest path among all pairs of key points of the boundary line and serving as an estimate of the boundary line; and
modify an electronic map to incorporate the line estimate of the boundary line.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The step of modifying an electronic map is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere post solution output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 further recite the limitations of a processor, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable medium. These limitations merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-18, and 20-23 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Proximity graph analysis for linear networks extraction from high-resolution satellite imagery”, published 2006, hereinafter “Skourikhine”, in view of US 20230194298 A1, filed 12/20/2021, hereinafter “Hong”, further in view of US 20080034074 A1, filed 08/02/2006, hereinafter “Becker”.
Regarding claim 1, Skourikhine teaches generate a graph from key points of a line. See at least Section 2 of page 3, ¶1-3 of page 4, and figure 4 of page 4, wherein a skeleton tree, or graph, is generated using key points obtained from Delaunay triangulation of a road area.
and determine a longest-shortest path within the graph, wherein the longest-shortest path is serving as an estimate of the line. See at least ¶1-2 and figure 7 of page 5, wherein a diameter path of the skeleton graph is obtained. The diameter path is the longest path in the tree. As is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of graph theory, the diameter of a graph is the longest distance of the shortest paths between any two nodes in the graph.
Skourikhine remains silent on a system comprising: a processor; a memory in communication with the processor, the memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method steps, the key points being generated from sensor data collected by vehicles traveling on a road having the boundary line, and modify an electronic map to incorporate the line estimate of the boundary line. Additionally, Skourikhine remains silent on the line being a boundary line. As discussed above, Skourikhine’s teaching is directed towards the centerlines of roads. Skourikhine does not explicitly teach the diameter path being a longest possible shortest path among all pairs of key points of the boundary line.
Hong teaches a system comprising: a processor; a memory in communication with the processor, the memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method steps. See at least [0076], processor 202 and non-transitory memory device 204 of system 102.
a boundary line. See at least [0059] and figure 1, wherein the detected lines comprise road lane boundary lines.
the key points being generated from sensor data collected by vehicles traveling on a road having the boundary line. See at least [0060] and figure 2, wherein probe histogram images captured from sensors of prove vehicles traveling within the road network are used.
and modify an electronic map to incorporate the line estimate of the boundary line. See at least [0104]-[0106], wherein a map database is updated to incorporate the lane line estimate. See at least [0065], wherein the map database is electronic.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Skourikhine with Hong’s system, processor, memory, and boundary line detection. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables map systems to correct lane geometry, leading to increased map accuracy and more effective route guidance, as recognized by Hong (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Becker teaches the diameter path being a longest possible shortest path among all pairs of key points of the boundary line. See at least [0006] and [0059], wherein a graph’s diameter is equivalent to the length of the longest shortest-path in the graph. See at least [0061]-[0068], wherein the graph’s shortest-paths are computed for all pairs of nodes in the graph.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Skourikhine with Becker’s definition of a diameter path being a longest possible shortest path among all pairs of key points of the boundary line. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables graph analysis to be performed on large diameter graphs while maintaining lower computational costs, as recognized by Becker (see at least [0007]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 2, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Skourikhine additionally teaches wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate the graph of the key points using a Delaunay triangulation process. See at least Section 2 of page 3, ¶1-3 of page 4, and figure 4 of page 4, wherein a skeleton tree, or graph, is generated using key points obtained from constrained Delaunay triangulation (CDT) of a road area.
Regarding claim 3, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Skourikhine additionally teaches wherein the graph is a weighted graph having weights based on Euclidean distances between nodes. See at least ¶1-3 of page 6, wherein a Euclidian minimum spanning tree (MST/EMST) is generated from the Delaunay triangulation. The EMST is a tree that connects all of the key points generated from CDT, wherein the cost of each edge connecting the points is the length, or distance, of the edge.
Regarding claim 4, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Skourikhine additionally teaches wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to refine the longest-shortest path to generate the line estimate. See at least ¶1-2 of page 5, ¶1 of page 6, and figure 7 of page 5, wherein a step of refining the line estimate takes place. This step of refinement comprises pruning non-significant branches of the diameter path (longest-shortest path).
Regarding claim 5, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above, and Skourikhine additionally teaches wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to smoothen the longest-shortest path to generate the line estimate. See at least ¶2-3 of page 6, wherein a step of smoothing is performed on the line estimates in the EMST. This step comprises removing line segments with inconsistent angular differences and re-linking the line estimate.
Regarding claim 7, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Skourikhine remains silent on wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform at least one of: update a preexisting boundary line of the electronic map using the line estimate; and create a new boundary line of the electronic map using the line estimate.
Hong teaches wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform at least one of: update a preexisting boundary line of the electronic map using the line estimate; and create a new boundary line of the electronic map using the line estimate. See at least [0104] and figure 14, step 750, wherein a map database is updated to include the corrected lane line geometry. Additionally, see at least [0058], wherein the corrections include repairing, recovering, generating, or creating lane lines.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Skourikhine with Hong’s technique of updating preexisting line information or creating new line information in a digital map database using the line geometry estimate. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables map systems to correct lane geometry, leading to increased map accuracy and more effective route guidance, as recognized by Hong (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Skourikhine teaches a method comprising steps of: generating a graph from key points of a line. See at least Section 2 of page 3, ¶1-3 of page 4, and figure 4 of page 4, wherein a skeleton tree, or graph, is generated using key points obtained from Delaunay triangulation of a road area.
and determining a longest-shortest path within the graph, wherein the longest-shortest path is serving as an estimate of the line. See at least ¶1-2 and figure 7 of page 5, wherein a diameter path of the skeleton graph is obtained. The diameter path is the longest path in the tree. As is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the graph theory, the diameter of a graph is the longest distance of the shortest paths between any two nodes in the graph.
Skourikhine remains silent on the key points being generated from sensor data collected by vehicles traveling on a road having the boundary line, and modifying an electronic map to incorporate the line estimate of the boundary line. Additionally, Skourikhine remains silent on the line being a boundary line. As discussed above, Skourikhine’s teaching is directed towards the centerlines of roads. Skourikhine does not explicitly teach the diameter path being a longest possible shortest path among all pairs of key points of the boundary line.
Hong teaches a boundary line. See at least [0059] and figure 1, wherein the detected lines comprise road lane boundary lines.
the key points being generated from sensor data collected by vehicles traveling on a road having the boundary line. See at least [0060] and figure 2, wherein probe histogram images captured from sensors of prove vehicles traveling within the road network are used.
and modifying an electronic map to incorporate the line estimate of the boundary line. See at least [0104]-[0106], wherein a map database is updated to incorporate the lane line estimate. See at least [0065], wherein the map database is electronic.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Skourikhine with Hong’s system, processor, memory, and boundary line detection. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables map systems to correct lane geometry, leading to increased map accuracy and more effective route guidance, as recognized by Hong (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Becker teaches the diameter path being a longest possible shortest path among all pairs of key points of the boundary line. See at least [0006] and [0059], wherein a graph’s diameter is equivalent to the length of the longest shortest-path in the graph. See at least [0061]-[0068], wherein the graph’s shortest-paths are computed for all pairs of nodes in the graph.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Skourikhine with Becker’s definition of a diameter path being a longest possible shortest path among all pairs of key points of the boundary line. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables graph analysis to be performed on large diameter graphs while maintaining lower computational costs, as recognized by Becker (see at least [0007]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 9, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, and Skourikhine additionally teaches further comprising the step of generating the graph of the key points using a Delaunay triangulation process. See at least Section 2 of page 3, ¶1-3 of page 4, and figure 4 of page 4, wherein a skeleton tree, or graph, is generated using key points obtained from constrained Delaunay triangulation (CDT) of a road area.
Regarding claim 10, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, and Skourikhine additionally teaches wherein the graph is a weighted graph having weights based on Euclidean distances between nodes. See at least ¶1-3 of page 6, wherein a Euclidian minimum spanning tree (MST/EMST) is generated from the Delaunay triangulation. The EMST is a tree that connects all of the key points generated from CDT, wherein the cost of each edge connecting the points is the length, or distance, of the edge.
Regarding claim 11, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, and Skourikhine additionally teaches further comprising the step of refining the longest-shortest path to generate the line estimate. See at least ¶1-2 of page 5, ¶1 of page 6, and figure 7 of page 5, wherein a step of refining the line estimate takes place. This step of refinement comprises pruning non-significant branches of the diameter path (longest-shortest path).
Regarding claim 12, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above, and Skourikhine additionally teaches further comprising the step of smoothening the longest-shortest path to generate the line estimate. See at least ¶2-3 of page 6, wherein a step of smoothing is performed on the line estimates in the EMST. This step comprises removing line segments with inconsistent angular differences and re-linking the line estimate.
Regarding claim 14, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, and Skourikhine remains silent on further comprising at least one of the following steps: updating a preexisting boundary line of the electronic map using the line estimate; and creating a new boundary line of the electronic map using the line estimate.
Hong teaches further comprising at least one of the following steps: updating a preexisting boundary line of the electronic map using the line estimate; and creating a new boundary line of the electronic map using the line estimate. See at least [0104] and figure 14, step 750, wherein a map database is updated to include the corrected lane line geometry. Additionally, see at least [0058], wherein the corrections include repairing, recovering, generating, or creating lane lines.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Skourikhine with Hong’s technique of updating preexisting line information or creating new line information in a digital map database using the line geometry estimate. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables map systems to correct lane geometry, leading to increased map accuracy and more effective route guidance, as recognized by Hong (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Skourikhine teaches generate a graph from key points of a line. See at least Section 2 of page 3, ¶1-3 of page 4, and figure 4 of page 4, wherein a skeleton tree, or graph, is generated using key points obtained from Delaunay triangulation of a road area.
and determine a longest-shortest path within the graph, wherein the longest-shortest path represents a line estimate of the boundary line. See at least ¶1-2 and figure 7 of page 5, wherein a diameter path of the skeleton graph is obtained. The diameter path is the longest path in the tree. As is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the graph theory, the diameter of a graph is the longest distance of the shortest paths between any two nodes in the graph.
Skourikhine remains silent on a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method steps, the key points being generated from sensor data collected by vehicles traveling on a road having the boundary line, and modify an electronic map to incorporate the line estimate of the boundary line. Additionally, Skourikhine remains silent on the line being a boundary line. As discussed above, Skourikhine’s teaching is directed towards the centerlines of roads. Skourikhine does not explicitly teach the diameter path being a longest possible shortest path among all pairs of key points of the boundary line.
Hong teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method steps. See at least [0076], processor 202 and non-transitory memory device 204 of system 102.
a boundary line. See at least [0059] and figure 1, wherein the detected lines comprise road lane boundary lines.
the key points being generated from sensor data collected by vehicles traveling on a road having the boundary line. See at least [0060] and figure 2, wherein probe histogram images captured from sensors of prove vehicles traveling within the road network are used.
and modify an electronic map to incorporate the line estimate of the boundary line. See at least [0104]-[0106], wherein a map database is updated to incorporate the lane line estimate. See at least [0065], wherein the map database is electronic.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Skourikhine with Hong’s system, processor, memory, and boundary line detection. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables map systems to correct lane geometry, leading to increased map accuracy and more effective route guidance, as recognized by Hong (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Becker teaches the diameter path being a longest possible shortest path among all pairs of key points of the boundary line. See at least [0006] and [0059], wherein a graph’s diameter is equivalent to the length of the longest shortest-path in the graph. See at least [0061]-[0068], wherein the graph’s shortest-paths are computed for all pairs of nodes in the graph.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Skourikhine with Becker’s definition of a diameter path being a longest possible shortest path among all pairs of key points of the boundary line. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables graph analysis to be performed on large diameter graphs while maintaining lower computational costs, as recognized by Becker (see at least [0007]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 16, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above, and Skourikhine additionally teaches further including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate the graph of the key points using a Delaunay triangulation process. See at least Section 2 of page 3, ¶1-3 of page 4, and figure 4 of page 4, wherein a skeleton tree, or graph, is generated using key points obtained from constrained Delaunay triangulation (CDT) of a road area.
Regarding claim 17, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above, and Skourikhine additionally teaches wherein the graph is a weighted graph having weights based on Euclidean distances between nodes. See at least ¶1-3 of page 6, wherein a Euclidian minimum spanning tree (MST/EMST) is generated from the Delaunay triangulation. The EMST is a tree that connects all of the key points generated from CDT, wherein the cost of each edge connecting the points is the length, or distance, of the edge.
Regarding claim 18, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above, and Skourikhine additionally teaches further including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to smoothen the longest-shortest path to generate the line estimate. See at least ¶2-3 of page 6, wherein a step of smoothing is performed on the line estimates in the EMST. This step comprises removing line segments with inconsistent angular differences and re-linking the line estimate.
Regarding claim 20, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above, and Skourikhine remains silent on further including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform at least one of: update a preexisting boundary line of the electronic map using the line estimate; and create a new boundary line of the electronic map using the line estimate.
Hong teaches further including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform at least one of: update a preexisting boundary line of a the electronic map using the line estimate; and create a new boundary line of the electronic map using the line estimate. See at least [0104] and figure 14, step 750, wherein a map database is updated to include the corrected lane line geometry. Additionally, see at least [0058], wherein the corrections include repairing, recovering, generating, or creating lane lines.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Skourikhine with Hong’s technique of updating preexisting line information or creating new line information in a digital map database using the line geometry estimate. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables map systems to correct lane geometry, leading to increased map accuracy and more effective route guidance, as recognized by Hong (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20220090939 A1, filed 01/06/2020, hereinafter “Pfeifle”.
Regarding claim 21, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Skourikhine remains silent on wherein each key point includes metadata indicating a source of sensor data and lane line type associated with the key point.
Pfeifle teaches wherein each key point includes metadata indicating a source of sensor data and lane line type associated with the key point. See at least [0053], wherein lanes are represented as a sequence of points and include metadata identifying the sensor that detected the lane and the lane line marking type.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Skourikhine with Pfeifle’s metadata. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables sensor detected lanes to be fused with map lane information, allowing vehicles to make better driving decisions (see at least [0044] and [0052]).
Regarding claim 22, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, and Skourikhine remains silent on wherein each key point includes metadata indicating a source of sensor data and lane line type associated with the key point.
Pfeifle teaches wherein each key point includes metadata indicating a source of sensor data and lane line type associated with the key point. See at least [0053], wherein lanes are represented as a sequence of points and include metadata identifying the sensor that detected the lane and the lane line marking type.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Skourikhine with Pfeifle’s metadata. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables sensor detected lanes to be fused with map lane information, allowing vehicles to make better driving decisions (see at least [0044] and [0052]).
Regarding claim 23, Skourikhine, Hong, and Becker in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above, and Skourikhine remains silent on wherein each key point includes metadata indicating a source of sensor data and lane line type associated with the key point.
Pfeifle teaches wherein each key point includes metadata indicating a source of sensor data and lane line type associated with the key point. See at least [0053], wherein lanes are represented as a sequence of points and include metadata identifying the sensor that detected the lane and the lane line marking type.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Skourikhine with Pfeifle’s metadata. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables sensor detected lanes to be fused with map lane information, allowing vehicles to make better driving decisions (see at least [0044] and [0052]).
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 Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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.
/S.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667