DETAILED ACTION
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s response received 1/27/26 has been accepted and entered. In response to a restriction requirement, applicant elected, without traverse, Group I comprising claims 1-14. Accordingly, claims 15-20 have been withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-14 are examined herein.
Specification
The title of the invention, “MACHINE NAVIGATION” is not descriptive and could apply to nearly all inventions submitted to the Examiners Art Unit. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is not required but merely suggested as a possibility: “MATCHING PERCEPTION DATA AND MAP DATA FOR NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation of what is and is not included in the limitation “receiving . . . lane data representing a lane associated with a location of an ego-machine, determining . . . road sections match a lane based at least on a geometric similarity between the lane and the consecutive road sections ” is unclear and indefinite in view of the specification and remaining claim language. The specification fails to provide a limiting definition for “lane data”. In some instances, the specification states the lane data is a lane graph, a lane network, a perception lane graph or “any data used to represent a lane graph” (¶ 42). The specification also indicates the vehicle can create a “lane graph” real time using sensor data. The specification further appears to indicate the lane data/ lane graph data can merely be a line segment of a trace of vehicle positions (¶¶ 45-46 “obtaining sensor data 112 . . . directed graph that represents a lane network . . lane sections represented by an edge . . . edge may have an associated geometry in the form of a sequence of line segments . . . trace the center of lane sections . . . single line segment . . . line segment points . . . local to the vehicle position and orientation . . . position of the vehicle may form the origin”). FIG. 4 depicts the comparison of lane data and road data as the comparison of two line segments. FIG. 6 depicts a line segment l that does not appear to be a lane and line segments ra-rd as the comparison of lane data and road data. Accordingly, under a BRI the “lane data representing a lane” may simply be a GPS trace of a vehicle wherein the limitation “geometric similarity between the lane and the consecutive road sections” is unclear since the comparison in the specification does not appear to be between an actual lane or actual detected lane, i.e., detected lane lines with dimensionality such as width. Rather the comparison appears to be between a vehicle location, which may or may not be related to a physical lane on a road, or a line segment derived from lane related data, but not a geometric similarity of a lane and a road. For example, even the geometry of an estimated lane centerline and a road centerline would not be considered to be within the bounds of “geometric similarity between [a] lane and . . . road sections” since a lane centerline does not possess the same geometry as a lane. Claims 2-14 are at least rejected on the basis of dependency.
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.
1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim 1, the claims recite the abstract idea of:
receiving road data representing road sections and lane data representing a lane associated with a location of an ego-machine;
determining that consecutive road sections match a lane based at least on a geometric similarity between the lane and the consecutive road sections; and
generating a representation of the lane being mapped to the consecutive road sections based at least on the determining that the consecutive road sections matched the lane; and
performing one or more operations corresponding1 to the ego-machine based at least on the representation of the lane mapped to the consecutive road sections.
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since the above limitations could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
For example, a human could perform the above limitation entirely mentally, i.e., a passenger of a vehicle could mentally recall “road data” and could mentally receive lane data by looking at the lanes during driving, mentally determine if consecutive road sections match a lane based at least on a geometric similarity between the lane and the consecutive road sections, mentally generate a representation of the lane being mapped to the consecutive road sections based at least on the determining that the consecutive road sections matched the lane and mentally perform a safe planning operation corresponding to the vehicle based on the mentally generated representation. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III, A (“claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include . . . a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”)
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). This follows conclusion follows from the claim limitations fail to recite any additional elements outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of a controller does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation “receiving road data representing road sections and lane data representing a lane associated with a location of an ego-machine” constitutes insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the limitation “performing one or more operations corresponding2 to the ego-machine based at least on the representation of the lane mapped to the consecutive road sections” is insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, as mentioned above, no further additional elements are recited such that the claims fail to amount to an innovative concept. Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine” claim 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US Patent No. 9321461 to Silver et al. (Silver)
With respect to claims 1 and 14, Silver discloses a method comprising:
receiving road data representing road sections and lane data3 representing a lane associated with a location of an ego-machine;
(1210, 1220, FIG. 12, Receive data identifying an object detected in a vehicle's environment, the data including location coordinates for the object, corresponding feature from pre-stored map information; col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 vehicle perception sensor data detects shape and location coordinates of features such as lane lines 610-618, road data representing road sections from map information 612 divided into sections 810-818; FIG. 7-8, )
determining that consecutive road sections match a lane based at least on a geometric similarity between the lane and the consecutive road sections; and
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
generating a representation of the lane being mapped to the consecutive road sections based at least on the determining that the consecutive road sections matched the lane; and
(FIG. 7-11 and corresponding description; 1230-1260, FIG. 12)
performing one or more operations corresponding to the ego-machine based at least on the representation of the lane mapped to the consecutive road sections.
(claim 1, determining and using steps, i.e., “using, by the one or more processors, the value to maneuver the vehicle in an autonomous driving mode”; col. 13, ll. 6-18)
With respect to claim 2, Silver discloses the determining that the consecutive road sections matched the lane based at least on the geometric similarity comprises:
determining that the lane is positioned within a distance threshold of one or more points along the consecutive road sections.
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
With respect to claim 3, Silver discloses the determining the consecutive road sections that match the lane based at least on the geometric similarity comprises:
determining the lane is positioned within a direction threshold of one or more points along the consecutive road sections.
(col. 11, l. 45- col. 12, l. 40; 312/ 912/ 814, FIG. 9; 1030, 1040, FIG. 10B)
With respect to claim 4, Silver discloses the determining the consecutive road sections that match the lane based at least on the geometric similarity comprises:
determining the lane is positioned within a distance threshold and a direction threshold of one or more points along the consecutive road sections.
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
(col. 11, l. 45- col. 12, l. 40; 312/ 912/ 814, FIG. 9; 1030, 1040, FIG. 10B)
With respect to claim 5, Silver discloses the determining the consecutive road sections that match the lane based at least on the geometric similarity comprises:
iteratively determining that one or more points along the consecutive road sections are positioned within a distance threshold of the lane based at least on extending one or more perpendicular line segments from the one or more points along the consecutive road sections to intersect with the lane.
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
(col. 11, l. 45- col. 12, l. 40; 312/ 912/ 814, FIG. 9; 1030, 1040, FIG. 10B)
With respect to claim 6, Silver discloses the one or more points along the consecutive road sections are positioned a predetermined distance between consecutive points of the one or more points.
(i.e., regular intervals 820-830, FIG. 8-9 and corresponding description)
With respect to claim 7, Silver discloses the determining the consecutive road sections that match the lane based at least on the geometric similarity comprises:
determining the lane is positioned within a distance threshold and a direction threshold for at least a predetermined number of points along the consecutive road sections.
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
(col. 11, l. 45- col. 12, l. 40; 312/ 912/ 814, FIG. 9; 1030, 1040, FIG. 10B)
With respect to claim 8, Silver discloses the determining the consecutive road sections that match the lane based at least on the geometric similarity comprises:
determining the lane is positioned within a distance threshold and a direction threshold for one or more points positioned along the consecutive road sections for at least a predetermined distance.
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
(col. 11, l. 45- col. 12, l. 40; 312/ 912/ 814, FIG. 9; 1030, 1040, FIG. 10B)
With respect to claim 9, Silver discloses generating a representation of an extent to which the consecutive road sections match the lane based at least on the geometric similarity between the lane and the consecutive road sections.
(1260, FIG. 12; col. 5, ll. 12-56; col. 12, ll. 42-65)
With respect to claim 10, Silver discloses the generating the representation of the extent of which the consecutive road sections match the lane is based at least on a sum of one or more inverses of one or more distances between the lane and one or more sampled locations4 along the consecutive road sections.
(col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 31 geographic location coordinates of the detected object 10 may be compared to the map information in order to identify corresponding features between the map information and the objects detected by the perception system . . .features having at least some geographic location coordinates that are within a threshold distance . . . of the geographic coordinates . . . may be identified as a corresponding feature . . . FIG. 8 is a comparison of shapes and geographic location coordinates of lane lines 310, 312, 314, and 316 to the detected objects of FIG. 7. In this example, lane 20 lines 312 and 612, 314 and 614, as well as 316 and 616 may be identified as corresponding features because of their close proximity to one another . . . curve of the corresponding feature of the map information may be divided into two or more segments)
(col. 11, l. 45- col. 12, l. 40; 312/ 912/ 814, FIG. 9; 1030, 1040, FIG. 10B)
With respect to claim 12, Silver discloses the representation of the lane mapped to the consecutive road sections comprises
a representation of a start and end location of a section along the lane,
a representation of an identity of at least a portion of the consecutive road sections, and
a representation of a start and end location of at least one road section.
(i.e., features, tags, metadata, geographic coordinates, FIG. 7-11 and corresponding description, i.e., col. 3, ll. 4-29; col. 4, ll. 43-55; col. 8, ll. 16-30; col. 5, ll. 1-11 feature may be divided into two or more segments. These segments may be described as a pair of points that correspond to a starting geographic location coordinate and an ending geographic location coordinate of the segment)
With respect to claim 13, Silver discloses selecting the lane based at least on the lane having a position along its geometry within a maximum distance from the location of the ego-machine (col. 10, l. 60- col. 11, l. 25 identified lanes must be within perception range of vehicle perception system in order to be selected; cl. 1 “identifying an object detected in a vehicle's environment”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver in view of 20180189578 to Yang et al. (Yang)
With respect to claim 11, Silver discloses determining to generate the representation of the lane being mapped to the consecutive road sections based at least on a representation of an extent to which the consecutive road sections match the lane
(1260, FIG. 12; col. 5, ll. 12-56; col. 12, ll. 42-65)
However, Silver fails to explicitly disclose the determination is dependent on a matching extent being greater than other matching extents. Yang, from the same field of endeavor, discloses determining to generate a representation of a lane mapped to a road section is based on a matching extent being greater than other matching extents
(i.e., based on a distance and direction (ray) qualifying road/ lane matches are determined, then qualifying intersections are further considered are ranked by a matching extent (i.e., distance and/or rules i) – iii) until final lane cuts for intersection are selected, ¶ 193; FIG. 37-43 and corresponding description; 191-192 template matching . . . best matches; 195 template match algorithm, automatically create lane connectors; 214 identify a best match to a known intersection configuration of a collection of known intersection configurations)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to generate lane/ road mappings that are better matches than other lane/ road mappings, as taught by Yang, in the system of Silver, in order to reduce compute power by only generating the most likely pairings. In addition, the teachings of Silver allow generating a complete connected graph of lane elements with respect to a road boundary such as an intersection providing appropriate information required for safe autonomous driving with maximum map storage efficiency (¶ 6, 55, 58).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 Operations corresponding to the ego-can include planning (published specification (spec.) ¶ 8 “operations related to . . . safe planning”)
2 Operations corresponding to the ego-can include planning (published specification (spec.) ¶ 8 “operations related to . . . safe planning”)
3 No limiting definition provided but can include “lane graph data, any data used to represent a lane graph” (¶ 42); perception collected information extracted from the environment (¶43). See also 112(b) rejection above for BRI of “lane data” and “lane”.
4 Based on a broadest reasonable interpretation the “sum” inverse distances can be the inverse of a single distance.