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 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but 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.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The pending independent claims recite a patent eligible practical application at least because they provide an improvement to the technical field of digital map generation and updating.
As described in the present application, "many digital maps rely on contextual information conveyed by physical traffic signs (e.g., speed limit signs, stop signs, yield signs, etc.) of a road network. For instance, a digital map may rely on speed limit signs to impose 'digital' speed limits on representations of road segments in the digital map. An [autonomous driving system] leveraging the digital map can control a vehicle consistent with the 'digital' speed limits imposed on the digital map. A digital map can also rely on the locations of stop and yield signs to draw 'digital' control markings that dictate where - in relation to a physical road segment and/or intersection - an [autonomous driving system] controls a vehicle to stop, slow down, commence a turn-related maneuver (e.g., a left or right turn, a U-turn, etc.), etc." Present application, [0019].
"While traffic signs can provide important contextual information for digital maps leveraged by [autonomous driving] systems, the frequency with which traffic signs are updated (e.g., added, removed, moved, modified with different content, etc.) can make it difficult to keep digital maps up to date. For example, while new traffic sign locations and/or new contextual information conveyed by traffic signs can be detected by various connected entities (e.g., by cameras or related sensors of connected vehicles navigating road regions proximate to the traffic sign updates), updating an expansive digital map in real-time (or close to real-time) in response to the detected traffic sign updates is still a serious challenge. Without specific rules/algorithms designed to dynamically adjust a digital map in response to traffic sign updates in a road network, conventional digital map technologies frequently rely on manual/human engineer-driven updates to account for these changes.... [G]iven the frequency of traffic sign updates that can occur in a road network, these manual/human engineer-driven updates often fail to keep pace with current road network states - resulting in digital map inaccuracies. As alluded to above, digital map inaccuracies can lead to reduced performance for [autonomous driving] systems that rely on digital maps for determining vehicle navigation paths, potentially leading to reduced traffic safety and efficiency." Present application, [0020].
"Against this backdrop, examples of the presently disclosed technology provide computerized systems and methods that automatically update digital maps in response to detected traffic sign updates in a rapid and efficient manner... [E]xamples achieve these advantages by cascading traffic sign updates through multi-layered digital maps using specific methodologies tailored to different types of traffic sign updates." Present application, [0021].
"Leveraging these tailored approaches for specific physical/real-world scenarios, the presently disclosed [methodologies] can more accurately reflect/inform desired driving behavior" than existing/conventional digital map generation and updating technologies. Present application, [0026].”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Automatically updating map databases, even ones in layers, is well known and understood in the art. Similarly, even if Applicant is correct that the embodiments disclosed in the specification improves technology by providing updates in real-time, the claims themselves do not reflect a real-time element.
Applicant further argues: “The pending independent claims also manipulate existing computer data structures to generate new computerized data structures in service of improving computerized digital map generation and updating.
The MPEP's guidance re: subject matter eligibility indicates that such manipulation of existing computer data structures to generate new computer data structures is patent eligible. See e.g., MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(ll)(A). For example, MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(ll)(A) highlights Research Corp. Techs., 627 F.3d at 868, 97 USPQ2d at 1280 - which found a claimed method was patent eligible because "the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) [to] output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital image)." Id. (emphasis added). MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(ll)(A) states the claim in Research Corp. Techs. is patent eligible because such a "manipulation of computer data structures" to output a "modified computer data structure""cannot be practically performed in the human mind." Relatedly, M PEP 2106.05( l)(vi) identifies "methods... or techniques, that generate new data" as an "[e]xample that the courts have indicated may be sufficient to show an improvement in existing technology." MPEP 2106.05(II)(vi)citing (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). (emphasis added).
Just like the patent eligible claim from Research Corp. Techs., the pending independent claims recite manipulation of existing computer data structures to generate new computer data structures in a manner that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Even more specifically, just like the patent eligible claim from Research Corp. Techs., the pending independent claims recite manipulation of existing computer data structures in the form of digital images to generate new computer data structures in the form of modified digital images. For example, independent claim 9 recites "updating a digital map of a road network region" by: (1) "drawing a control marking representation adjacent [a detected] control sign representation;" (2) "reapportioning, to the carriageway link, a region of the junction on a carriageway link-side of the control marking representation;" (3) "extending a path link contained within the carriageway link to the control marking representation;" and (4) "redrawing a path link contained within the junction based on location of the control marking representation." Similarly, independent claim 16 recites a vehicle configured to update a "digital map" by: (1) "drawing a control marking representation adjacent the control sign representation," (2) "reapportioning, to the junction, a region of the carriageway link on a junction-side of the control marking representation," (3) "shortening a path link contained within the carriageway link based on location of the control marking representation," and (4) "redrawing a path link contained within the junction based on location of the control marking representation."
"Leveraging these tailored approaches for specific physical/real-world scenarios, the presently disclosed [methodologies] can more accurately reflect/inform desired driving behavior" than existing/conventional digital map updating technologies. Present application, [0026].”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims are not limited to modifying complex data structures like pixel and associated mask to produce a similarly complex halftone image, but instead describe a methodical process of updating a map structure, linked only generally to a computing environment. A human can follow the process steps to update a map, even without the aid of a computer. The computer implementation of the method merely generally applies the judicial exception to a computing environment.
This, the independent claims 1, 9, and 15 remain ineligible.
However, dependent claims 4, 12, and 19 are not rejected as ineligible, because the claims integrate the mental process into a practical application.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process, which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
(a) responsive to detecting a speed limit sign update in a road network region, attributing, to path links of a digital map adjacent a speed limit sign representation, a speed limit value in accordance with the speed limit sign representation, wherein the attributions of step (a) reflect the detected speed limit sign update;
and (b) propagating, in a direction of travel indicated by path links, the attributed speed limit values from step (a) to path links non-adjacent to speed limit sign representations, wherein the propagations of step (b) terminate at path links involving turn-related maneuvers.
wherein the digital map comprises:
a traffic sign layer comprising data related to traffic signs including speed limit sign representations;
a carriageway link layer comprising carriageway links representing road segments of the road network region;
a junction layer comprising junctions representing regions of intersection between road segments of the road network region; and
a path link layer comprising path links representing vehicular travel paths through lanes contained within the carriageway links and junctions.
The highlighted method in claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of attributing to path links adjacent a speed limit sign, the speed limit value, then propagating the speed limit values to non-adjacent links, while separating the different aspects by category. This is equivalent to a human, seeing a speed limit representation on a map, propagating it to downstream links in order to determine their speed limits.
Claim 9 recites:
A computer-implemented method for updating a digital map of a road network region, the method comprising, responsive to detecting addition of a control sign representation on a junction side of a boundary between a carriageway link and a junction of the digital map:
drawing a control marking representation adjacent the control sign representation;
reapportioning, to the carriageway link, a region of the junction on a carriageway link-side of the control marking representation;
extending a path link contained within the carriageway link to the control marking representation;
and redrawing a path link contained within the junction based on location of the control marking representation;
wherein the digital map comprises:
a traffic sign layer comprising data related to traffic signs including control sign representations;
a carriageway link layer comprising carriageway links representing road segments of the road network region;
a junction layer comprising junctions representing regions of intersection between road segments of the road network region; and
a path link layer comprising path links representing vehicular travel paths through lanes contained within the carriageway links and junctions.
The highlighted method in claim 9 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of detecting a control sign on a map, drawing a control sign on the map, reapportioning a portion of the junction to the carriageway link, extending a path link to the control sign, and redrawing the path link within the junction, while separating the different aspects by category. This is equivalent to a human noting a new control sign next to an intersection on a map and drawing the sign, then redrawing the boundary between intersection and road and the associated path links through them.
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). As such, upon detecting a sign on a map, can alter the map accordingly, either by propagating the speed limit downstream or by redrawing the boundaries between intersections and links. The mere nominal recitation that the process is being performed by a computer does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual use of the map data in controlling the vehicle in a specific manner. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
(a) responsive to detecting a speed limit sign update in a road network region, attributing, to path links of a digital map adjacent a speed limit sign representation, a speed limit value in accordance with the speed limit sign representation, wherein the attributions of step (a) reflect the detected speed limit sign update;
and (b) propagating, in a direction of travel indicated by path links, the attributed speed limit values from step (a) to path links non-adjacent to speed limit sign representations, wherein the propagations of step (b) terminate at path links involving turn-related maneuvers;
wherein the digital map comprises:
a traffic sign layer comprising data related to traffic signs including speed limit sign representations;
a carriageway link layer comprising carriageway links representing road segments of the road network region;
a junction layer comprising junctions representing regions of intersection between road segments of the road network region; and
a path link layer comprising path links representing vehicular travel paths through lanes contained within the carriageway links and junctions.
Claim 9 recites:
A computer-implemented method for updating a digital map of a road network region, the method comprising, responsive to detecting addition of a control sign representation on a junction side of a boundary between a carriageway link and a junction of the digital map:
drawing a control marking representation adjacent the control sign representation;
reapportioning, to the carriageway link, a region of the junction on a carriageway link-side of the control marking representation;
extending a path link contained within the carriageway link to the control marking representation;
and redrawing a path link contained within the junction based on location of the control marking representation;
wherein the digital map comprises:
a traffic sign layer comprising data related to traffic signs including control sign representations;
a carriageway link layer comprising carriageway links representing road segments of the road network region;
a junction layer comprising junctions representing regions of intersection between road segments of the road network region; and
a path link layer comprising path links representing vehicular travel paths through lanes contained within the carriageway links and junctions.
The highlighted portions of claims 1 and 9 above do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the methods are “computer-implemented,” presumably by a generic computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
Any implied obtaining steps recited in the claim are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area or navigational data or planned path data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Selecting and transmitting data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by servers, such as the back-end server in claim 10. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the selecting steps and the transmitting steps are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data (which is one example listed in applicant’s disclosure as a remedial action) is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 and 9 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 9 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 9, and is likewise ineligible for similar reasons.
The dependent claims are likewise ineligible. The claims mostly add to the mental process (claims 2-3, 5, 7, 10-11, 14, 17-18, and 21-22).
Therefore, most of the dependent claims (with the exception of claims 4, 12, and 19) are likewise ineligible.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190325736 Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”), further in view of US20240230366 Seegmiller et al. (hereinafter “Seegmiller”), further in view of US20220349725 by Chreptyk et al. (hereinafter “Chreptyk”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches A computer-implemented method comprising: (a) responsive to detecting a speed limit sign update in a road network region, attributing, to path links of a digital map adjacent a speed limit sign representation, a speed limit value in accordance with the speed limit sign representation, wherein the attributions of step (a) reflect the detected speed limit sign update; see for example paragraphs [0087]-[0090], or [0056], where the system receives “TSR” data (“traffic sign recognition”, see [0045]) from vehicles in order to recognize traffic signs, including updated speed limit signs. This is done in order to update a map with the updated traffic sign data, see, e.g., [0053]-[0055]. Then see [0090]-[0093], where the system will the TSR observations in order to localize the sign on the map and display it.
and (b) propagating, in a direction of travel indicated by path links, the attributed speed limit values from step (a) to path links non-adjacent to speed limit sign representations, see for example paragraphs [0057]-[0058], where Zhang propagates the updated speed limit to downstream links.
wherein the digital map comprises: a traffic sign . See for example paragraph [0085], where the map database includes traffic signs, road links, and intersections; see also paragraph [0133], where the map includes lane information (reading on path links).
Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the propagations of step (b) terminate at path links involving turn-related maneuvers. Further, Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the digital map comprises: a traffic sign layer comprising data related to traffic signs including speed limit sign representations; a carriageway link layer comprising carriageway links representing road segments of the road network region; a junction layer comprising junctions representing regions of intersection between road segments of the road network region; and a path link layer comprising path links representing vehicular travel paths through lanes contained within the carriageway links and junctions. Although Zhang updates digital maps with these different types of information, he does not explicitly teach that each type of information has its own layer.
However, Seegmiller teaches a similar system, wherein the propagations of step (b) terminate at path links involving turn-related maneuvers. See for example paragraph [0067], where updated speed limit values are propagated, and “only same-direction neighbor and successor connections between lane segments are traversed. For example, turning lane segments in intersections may be skipped because they turn off of the original road.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the speed limit propagation system of Zhang with the speed limit propagation system of Seegmiller with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to extend speed limits throughout a map until their natural termination at new roads.
Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the digital map comprises: a traffic sign layer comprising data related to traffic signs including speed limit sign representations; a carriageway link layer comprising carriageway links representing road segments of the road network region; a junction layer comprising junctions representing regions of intersection between road segments of the road network region; and a path link layer comprising path links representing vehicular travel paths through lanes contained within the carriageway links and junctions, as described above.
However, Chreptyk teaches wherein the digital map comprises: a traffic sign layer comprising data related to traffic signs including speed limit sign representations; a carriageway link layer comprising carriageway links representing road segments of the road network region; a junction layer comprising junctions representing regions of intersection between road segments of the road network region; and a path link layer comprising path links representing vehicular travel paths through lanes contained within the carriageway links and junctions. See for example paragraphs [0005]-[0009] and [0069]-[0070], including a traffic sign layer which reads on traffic sign layer; “a lane graph layer” (see also “core layer” in paragraph [0070]) which reads on a carriageway link layer because it defines a graph structure of the map of road lanes; “a junction layer” which reads on a junction layer; and “a lane channel layer” which reads on a path link layer, because the lane channels describe accurate lane boundaries for vehicles to traverse the lanes (see paragraph [0008]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the speed limit propagation system of Zhang, modified by the speed limit propagation system of Seegmiller, with the multiple layer system of Chreptyk with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to discretize data for faster searching, faster downloading, and adapting the level of detail needed by the end user (see Chreptyk [0068]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches a method further comprising:(c) attributing, to path links contained within carriageway links and without speed limit values attributed or propagated to them via steps (a)-(b), previously saved speed limit values for their associated carriageway links; and (d) propagating, in the direction of travel indicated by path links, the attributed and propagated speed limit values from steps (a)-(c) to the path links involving turn- related maneuvers. See for example paragraph [0058] and Figure 6, where the learned sign data 503a propagates from the upstream link 505a to the downstream link 505c (crossing the node/intersection leading to link 505b, with its turn maneuvers), and then the propagation further turns and proceeds down link 505d.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches a method further comprising: (e) updating speed limit values for carriageway links based on the speed limit values attributed and propagated to path links from steps (b)-(d). Again, see for example paragraph [0058], where the speed limit values of the links/segments are updated based on the propagation.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches a method further comprising:(e) using the updated digital map resulting from steps (a)-(d) to autonomously control a vehicle. See for example paragraph [0048], where the learned signed data and geographic database can be used for autonomous driving.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches a method wherein: each of the path links includes a function type; and the propagations of step (b) also terminate at transitions between path links of differing function types. See again paragraph [0058], where the system terminates the propagation upon encountering links with new speed limits.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches a method wherein the carriageway links represent polygons that enclose road segments of the road network region having a constant number of lanes. See for example paragraph [0115], where the HD map information includes representations of the lanes in the road, the number of lanes, and their widths. Similarly, paragraph [0133] discusses precise lane geometry with boundaries.
Claims 9-12, 14, 16-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, further in view of US20240426632 by Pullagurla et al. (hereinafter “Pullagurla”), further in view of Chreptyk.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches A computer-implemented method for updating a digital map of a road network region, the method comprising, responsive to detecting addition of a control sign representation on a junction side of a boundary between a carriageway link and a junction of the digital map: drawing a control marking representation adjacent the control sign representation; see for example paragraphs [0087]-[0090], where the system receives “TSR” data (“traffic sign recognition”, see [0045]) from vehicles in order to recognize traffic signs, including stop signs [0089]. This is done in order to update a map with the updated traffic sign data, see, e.g., [0053]-[0055]. Then see [0090]-[0093], where the system will the TSR observations in order to localize the sign on the map and display it.
See for example paragraph [0085], where the system corrects the locations of signs in complex road geometries, including intersections, and propagating the sign values to nearby (adjacent) road links. See also paragraphs [0132]-[0133], where Zhang will update map layers, including precise lane geometry.
wherein the digital map comprises: a traffic sign . See for example paragraph [0085], where the map database includes traffic signs, road links, and intersections; see also paragraph [0133], where the map includes lane information (reading on path links).
Zhang does not explicitly teach reapportioning, to the carriageway link, a region of the junction on a carriageway link-side of the control marking representation; extending a path link contained within the carriageway link to the control marking representation; and redrawing a path link contained within the junction based on location of the control marking representation. Although Zhang does teach correcting map geometry, Zhang does not explicitly teach reapportioning, extending, or redrawing the road links.
However, Pullagurla teaches reapportioning, to the carriageway link, a region of the junction on a carriageway link-side of the control marking representation; extending a path link contained within the carriageway link to the control marking representation; and redrawing a path link contained within the junction based on location of the control marking representation. See for example paragraphs [0071] or [0087], where the system stores the geometry of intersections, including road shape, stop signs, etc. See also paragraphs [0044]-[0045] and [0060]-[0064], where each vehicle detects inconsistencies in the observed road/sign features and updates the server maps accordingly. Therefore, when the vehicle detects errors in the road geometry (see, e.g., [0086]-[0093]), it corrects the road/intersection geometry, the placement of the stop sign, and redraws the road/intersection geometry as necessary (extending or shortening links as required).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed map correction and propagation system of Zhang with the geometry correction system of Pullagurla with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to correct the intersection geometry based on observations of vehicles, refining and updating maps as the roads change and improving their accuracy.
Further, Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the digital map comprises: a traffic sign layer comprising data related to traffic signs including control sign representations; a carriageway link layer comprising carriageway links representing road segments of the road network region; a junction layer comprising junctions representing regions of intersection between road segments of the road network region; and a path link layer comprising path links representing vehicular travel paths through lanes contained within the carriageway links and junctions. Although Zhang updates digital maps with these different types of information, he does not explicitly teach that each type of information has its own layer.
However, Chreptyk teaches wherein the digital map comprises: a traffic sign layer comprising data related to traffic signs including control sign representations; a carriageway link layer comprising carriageway links representing road segments of the road network region; a junction layer comprising junctions representing regions of intersection between road segments of the road network region; and a path link layer comprising path links representing vehicular travel paths through lanes contained within the carriageway links and junctions. See for example paragraphs [0005]-[0009] and [0069]-[0070], including “a traffic sign layer” which reads on traffic sign layer; “a lane graph layer” (see also “core layer” in paragraph [0070]) which reads on a carriageway link layer because it defines a graph structure of the map of road lanes; “a junction layer” which reads on a junction layer; and “a lane channel layer” which reads on a path link layer, because the lane channels describe accurate lane boundaries for vehicles to traverse the lanes (see paragraph [0008]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the speed limit propagation system of Zhang, modified by the geometry correction system of Pullagurla, with the multiple layer system of Chreptyk with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to discretize data for faster searching, faster downloading, and adapting the level of detail needed by the end user (see Chreptyk [0068]-[0070]).
Independent claim 16 is directed towards A vehicle with similar limitations to claim 9 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale. Any additional or slightly different limitations are taught in a similar manner: Zhang teaches a vehicle, and Pullagurla teaches shortening path links.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches further comprising, responsive to detecting addition of a second control sign representation within a threshold distance from the boundary between the carriageway link and the junction, on a carriageway link side of the boundary: drawing a second control marking representation adjacent the second control sign representation; see for example paragraphs [0087]-[0090], where the system receives “TSR” data (“traffic sign recognition”, see [0045]) from vehicles in order to recognize traffic signs, including stop signs [0089]. This is done in order to update a map with the updated traffic sign data, see, e.g., [0053]-[0055]. Then see [0090]-[0093], where the system will the TSR observations in order to localize the sign on the map and display it.
See for example paragraph [0085], where the system corrects the locations of signs in complex road geometries, including intersections, and propagating the sign values to nearby (adjacent) road links. See also paragraphs [0132]-[0133], where Zhang will update map layers, including precise lane geometry.
Zhang does not explicitly teach reapportioning, to the junction, a region of the carriageway link on a junction- side of the second control marking representation; shortening the path link contained within the carriageway link based on location of the second control marking representation; and redrawing the path link contained within the junction based on location of the second control marking representation. Although Zhang does teach correcting map geometry, Zhang does not explicitly teach reapportioning, extending, or redrawing the road links.
However, Pullagurla teaches reapportioning, to the carriageway link, a region of the junction on a carriageway link-side of the control marking representation; extending a path link contained within the carriageway link to the control marking representation; and redrawing a path link contained within the junction based on location of the control marking representation. See for example paragraphs [0071] or [0087], where the system stores the geometry of intersections, including road shape, stop signs, etc. See also paragraphs [0044]-[0045] and [0060]-[0064], where each vehicle detects inconsistencies in the observed road/sign features and updates the server maps accordingly. Therefore, when the vehicle detects errors in the road geometry (see, e.g., [0086]-[0093]), it corrects the road/intersection geometry, the placement of the stop sign, and redraws the road/intersection geometry as necessary (extending or shortening links as required).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed map correction and propagation system of Zhang with the geometry correction system of Pullagurla with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to correct the intersection geometry based on observations of vehicles, refining and updating maps as the roads change and improving their accuracy.
Claim 17 has similar limitations to claim 10 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale. Any additional or slightly different limitations are taught in a similar manner: Zhang teaches a vehicle, and Pullagurla teaches shortening path links.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches further comprising, responsive to detecting addition of a third control sign representation adjacent the carriageway link and outside a threshold distance from a boundary between the carriageway link and any junction: drawing a third control marking representation adjacent the third control sign representation; splitting the carriageway link into a second carriageway link and a third carriageway link separated by the third control marking representation; and splitting the path link contained within the carriageway link into a second path link and a third path link separated by the third control marking representation. See for example paragraph [0048], where Zhang detects a newly placed sign. Zhang then propagates speed limits according to the speed limit signs, ending the propagation when a new speed limit sign is introduced; see for example [0055].
Claim 18 has similar limitations to claim 11 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang teaches a system further comprising: using the updated digital map to autonomously control a vehicle. See for example paragraph [0048], where the learned signed data and geographic database can be used for autonomous driving.
Claim 19 has similar limitations to claim 12 above, and is rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches wherein the carriageway links represent polygons that enclose road segments of the road network region having a constant number of lanes. See for example paragraph [0115], where the HD map information includes representations of the lanes in the road, the number of lanes, and their widths. Similarly, paragraph [0133] discusses precise lane geometry with boundaries.
Claims 21 and 22 have similar limitations to claim 14 above, and is rejected using a similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights