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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/428,586 filed on 1/31/2024.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 9/15/2026.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the “Request for Continued Examination” filed on 9/15/2026.
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 of this title, 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, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wray (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0306156 A1) in view of Levinson (U.S. Patent 9,612,123 B1).
In regard to Claim 1, Wray teaches a method of generating a HD map and lane trajectory for an autonomous vehicle based on an SD map, the method comprising:
Receiving images from one or more image sensors mounted on a vehicle (see Paragraph 29 lines 5-11, Paragraph 45 lines 1-4, Paragraph 61 lines 7-11 teaching a vehicle route planning system for an autonomous vehicle wherein the vehicle includes sensors, such as cameras);
Via a vehicle processor, generating perception data from the received images, wherein the perception data provides a representation of an environment proximate to the vehicle (see Paragraph 49 lines 3-6, Paragraph 53 lines 1-5, Paragraph 223 lines 1-7 teaching that the sensor data can be recorded as point clouds, images, or coordinates, by a processor 133, wherein the sensor data can be collected while the vehicle is traversing, and used to construct or augment a map around the vehicle);
Receiving a standard definition (SD) map corresponding with the environment proximate to the vehicle (see Paragraph 41 teaching that the vehicle can plan routes using standard definition map data);
Via the vehicle processor, and during operation of the vehicle in the environment (see Paragraph 47 lines 3-5 teaching that HD maps are generated as roads of SD maps are traversed), generating a high definition (HD) map corresponding with the environment proximate to the vehicle based on the SD map and the perception data (see Paragraph 46 lines 1-5 teaching that sensor data can be used to supplement the SD map with HD information), and wherein generating the HD map includes generating lane-level information based on the perception data (see Paragraph 46 lines 1-5, Paragraph 61 lines 4-5, 214 lines 10-13 teaching that while the vehicle is traversing, sensor data can be used to collect HD information, such as lane lines, which can be used to construct or augment an HD map of the vehicle, or for lane-level route planning); and
Via the vehicle processor, and during operation of the vehicle in the environment, generating lane-level trajectory associated with a planned route for the vehicle utilizing the lane-level information generated during the operation of the vehicle for the HD map (see Paragraph 46 lines 1-5, Paragraph 47 lines 3-5, Paragraph 62 lines 2-7, Paragraph 96, Paragraph 234 lines 1-5 teaching that HD data can be used for lane-level trajectory planning and controlling the vehicle to move to a specific lane segment as it traverses roads, based on HD map data).
Wray fails to teach wherein the HD map is generated locally at the vehicle and is not received by the vehicle from a remote server.
However, Levinson teaches wherein the HD map is generated locally at the vehicle and is not received by the vehicle from a remote server (see Figure 4, Column 12 lines 49-50, Column 40 lines 21-27, Column 41 lines 39-45 teaching an autonomous vehicle mapping system with a local map generator 440 contained within autonomous vehicle 430 that generates high definition or 3D map data in real-time in an “offline” mode).
Wray and Levinson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle mapping systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wray’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein HD map data is generated locally without remote processing or assistance as taught by Levinson. Doing so could improve an autonomous vehicle mapping system by enabling the system to function in the absence of remote connectivity.
In regard to Claim 5, Wray further teaches wherein the lane-level trajectory is generated based on a prior trajectory provided by the SD map (see Paragraph 42 lines 8-10, Paragraph 46 lines 1-5 teaching that the SD map may include coordinates for navigation, and wherein the SD map is supplemented so as to be used for lane-level route planning).
In regard to Claim 7, Wray further teaches executing autonomous driving commands to autonomously navigate the vehicle based on the lane-level trajectory and the HD map (see Abstract, Paragraph 46 lines 1-5 teaching that sensor data can be used to supplement the SD map with HD information, so that the SD map can be used for lane-level route planning for autonomous driving).
In regard to Claim 8, Wray further teaches a vehicle processor located on-board the vehicle and in communication with the image sensors, wherein the vehicle processor is programmed (see Figure 1, Paragraph 53 lines 13-18 teaching that the vehicle controller 130 includes a processor 133 and a sensor 136, which are electronically connected).
The rest of Claim 8 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 11 is substantially similar to Claim 5 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 5 above for analysis.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 7 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 7 above for analysis.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 5 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 5 above for analysis.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 7 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 7 above for analysis.
Claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wray (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0306156 A1) in view of Levinson (U.S. Patent 9,612,123 B1), in further view of Wheeler (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0172756 A1).
In regard to Claim 3, Wray fails to teach wherein the perception data includes lane lines, and wherein the generating the lane-level trajectory includes generating a centerline based on the lane lines, wherein the centerline is associated with the planned route for the vehicle.
However, Wheeler teaches wherein the perception data includes lane lines, and wherein the generating the lane-level trajectory includes generating a centerline based on the lane lines, wherein the centerline is associated with the planned route for the vehicle (see Abstract lines 5-8, Paragraph 56 lines 3-5 teaching an autonomous vehicle lane line creation system wherein the system generates lane lines for route navigation, based on camera image pixels, and locates center lines of the lane lines).
Wray and Wheeler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that generate or update maps for use by autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wray’s invention to incorporate a feature that uses sensor data to identify edge lines and center lines of driving lanes as taught by Wheeler. Doing so could improve an autonomous driving system by providing a scheme that can laterally align a vehicle with a driving area based on sensor data pertaining to the edges of the road, as well as the center. This could be helpful on roads that have excessively wide or narrow widths, in which the edges of the road may not be sufficient to determine where the vehicle should be positioned across the road as it travels.
In regard to Claim 6, Wray fails to teach wherein the one or more image sensors includes a lidar sensor.
However, Wheeler teaches wherein the one or more image sensors includes a lidar sensor (see Paragraph 65 lines 7-10 teaching that the sensor includes a LIDAR).
Wray and Wheeler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that generate or update maps for use by autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wray’s invention to incorporate a LIDAR sensor as taught by Wheeler. Doing so could improve a vehicle mapping system by incorporating environmental data that is only ascertainable by LIDAR sensors.
Claim 9 is substantially similar to Claim 3 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 3 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 12, Wray fails to teach wherein the plurality of image sensors includes both a camera and a lidar sensor.
However, Wheeler teaches wherein the plurality of image sensors includes both a camera and a lidar sensor (see Paragraph 65 lines 7-10 teaching that the sensors includes a camera and a LIDAR).
Wray and Wheeler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that generate or update maps for use by autonomous vehicles. vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wray’s invention to incorporate a camera and a LIDAR sensor as taught by Wheeler. Doing so could improve a vehicle mapping system by incorporating environmental data that is ascertainable by both cameras and LIDAR sensors.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 3 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 3 above for analysis.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 6 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 6 above for analysis.
Claims 4, 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wray (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0306156 A1) in view of Levinson (U.S. Patent 9,612,123 B1), in further view of Wheeler (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0172756 A1), in further view of Miyawaki (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0127678 A1).
In regard to Claim 4, Wray fails to teach wherein the method, via the vehicle processor, utilizes the centerline in downstream planner tasks.
However, Miyawaki teaches wherein the method, via the vehicle processor, utilizes the centerline in downstream planner tasks (see Abstract teaching a vehicle driving system that sets a center line passing through a center of a travelable width of an own vehicle within a current lane as a target traveling line, and autonomously steers the own vehicle such that a reference point of the own vehicle moves along the target traveling line).
Wray and Miyawaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wray’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a centerline is used for subsequent vehicle operational processes as taught by Miyawaki. Doing so could improve an autonomous driving feature of a vehicle, by ensuring that the vehicle stays centered within a driving space while in motion.
Claims 10, 16 are substantially similar to Claim 4 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 4 above for analysis.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments and remarks with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19 have been fully considered, but are either not persuasive, or are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regard to Claims 1, 8, 14, the Applicant argues that the Wray reference fails to teach “generating, during operation of the vehicle, a lane-level trajectory utilizing lane-level information generated during that operation for the HD map.” The Examiner disagrees. Wray teaches a vehicle that generates its own HD map as it traverses a road of an SD map, based on sensor data including lane line data, and provides controlling action for moving the vehicle to a different lane segment (see Paragraphs 46, 47, 61, 96). Please see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1, 8, 14 above.
The Applicant further argues that Wray fails to teach “that the claimed HD map is generated locally and is not received from a remote server.” New reference Levinson has been introduced in light of this argument. Please see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1, 8, 14 above.
With regard to Claims 5, 11, 17 the Applicant further argues that Wray fails to teach “that the lane-level trajectory be generated based on a prior trajectory provided by the SD map.” The Examiner disagrees. Wray teaches that the vehicle generates its own HD map as it traverses a road of an SD map, and that as the vehicle is controlled to move, the lane-level route planner can obtain the previous road, and update its previous route plan (see Paragraphs 47, 219). Please see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 5, 11, 17 above.
With regard to Claims 7, 13, 19 the Applicant further argues that Wray fails to teach “executing autonomous driving commands based on both the lane-level trajectory and the HD map.” The Examiner disagrees. Wray teaches a process wherein a vehicle is autonomously traversed based on lane-level trajectories and a route obtained via an HD map (see Figure 15, Paragraphs 96, 253, 257). Please see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 7, 13, 19 above.
The rest of the claims remain rejected under the rationales provided in the previous office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights