DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8/15/25 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 1 and 9-10 are amended.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the pending claims, Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 112(d) rejection of claim 9, the amendment does not render the rejection moot because the amended language still contains a contingent limitation (i.e., “when a deviation . . . occurs”).
With respect to the 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-16 Applicant asserts that Wheeler does not disclose or suggest “comparing the out-of-vehicle check result with the in-vehicle check result to ascertain a comparison result” (Amend. 6).
First, it is important to note that at least one claim does not require the above limitation, i.e., claims 10-13 and 15, rendering Applicants’ argument moot with respect to these claims.
Second, Applicant has not provided any response with respect to the citations provided in the non-final office action as related to this limitation. Third, Applicants’ assertion does not provide any rationale, evidence or reasoning as to why the citations provided be Examiner do not disclose the claimed subject matter. Such a statement amounts to no more than reciting the disputed limitations and generally alleging that the cited prior art references are deficient. Merely pointing out certain claim features recited in independent claim 1 and nakedly asserting that none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest such features does not amount to a separate patentability argument. Attorney arguments that are conclusory in nature, i.e., providing no further substantive explanation or evidence in support is afforded little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). Furthermore, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984; Accord M.P.E.P. 2145. In addition, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.").
In addition, Wheeler discloses “comparing the out-of-vehicle check result with the in-vehicle check result to ascertain a comparison result” Out of vehicle check results are determined at online HD map system 110. See FIG. 4, map update module 420, map accuracy management module 450, etc.; i.e, online verification at OHDM in one example is shownin Fig. FIG. 10.
In-vehicle check results are determined at vehicle computing system 120. See FIG. 2, Map update API, 285; in vehicle verification in FIG. 9 (i.e., ¶ 79 “FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustrating an example process of a vehicle 150 verifying existing landmark maps, according to one embodiment., i.e.., the existing landmark maps are the maps resulting from an out of vehicle check result shown in Fig. 10, wherein the map verification at the vehicle and the OHDM are continually transmitted back and forth and refined such that there is a continual “comparing the out-of-vehicle check result with the in-vehicle check result to ascertain a comparison result”).
For example, the OHDM performs an out of vehicle check result which is used to update the online map database system, which is further used transmitted to vehicles, which is further used to repeat the process of verifying exiting maps in a continual loop such that confidence values of the maps are continually adjusted by ascertaining comparison results, i.e., Applicants assertion that in vehicle verification and out of vehicle verification are siloed and “two separate processes” that do not interact with one another is incorrect.
(¶¶ 101-103 online HD map system 110 removes any identified outlier verification records . . . online HD map system 110 identifies outlier verification records . . . online HD map system 110 may apply data outlier detection techniques such as density-based techniques, subspace-based outlier detection, replicator neural networks, cluster analysis-based outlier detection, and the like to identify outlier verification records and outlier raw sensor data. Outlier verification records and outlier sensor data are likely to be caused by errors. By removing both of these, the online HD map system 110 improves the reliability as well as the accuracy of the HD maps . . . HD map system 110 updates 1010 landmark objects based on the verification record types and raw sensor data in the group. For example, the online HD map system 110 increases the confidence value associated with each landmark object that corresponds to one or more match records . . . online HD map system 110 decreases the confidence value associated with each landmark object that corresponds to one or more mismatch records)
In addition, further comparison result checks occur by determining the resultant confidence value is above a threshold (¶¶ 104 – 109 if the confidence value is below a threshold . . . verify whether the landmark object as presented in the HD map 110 is accurate or should be updated . . . HD map system 110 determines 1016 a set of changes to the HD map 510, if the confidence value is above the threshold value . . . HD map system 110 applies the set of changes to the HD map 510 to update the map . . . the online HD map system 110 verifies the existing occupancy maps and updates the existing occupancy maps . . . online HD map system 100 distributes copies of the existing occupancy maps or a portion thereof to vehicles 150 and the vehicles 150 verify the local copies of the existing occupancy maps or the portion thereof. The online HD map system 100 updates the occupancy maps based on the verification results . . . the vehicles 150 analyzes the verification results, determines whether the existing occupancy maps should be updated based on the verification results, and sends information to the online HD map system 100 for use to update the existing occupancy maps. The online HD map system 100 uses the received information to update the existing landmark maps. In some implementations, the vehicles 150 send summaries of the verification results to the online HD map system 100, the online HD map system 100 analyzes the summaries of the verification results to determine whether the existing occupancy maps should be updated, requests information needed to update the existing occupancy maps from the vehicles 150, and updates the existing occupancy maps using the requested information; similarly see FIG. 11A -11B and corresponding description (i.e., ¶¶ 110-111, 114-116 (verification can occur either at vehicle or at online HD map system); 119 vehicle 150 compares 1116 the updated occupancy map to the existing occupancy map (i.e., the occupancy map stored in the local HD map store 275) to identify one or more discrepancies; 120 HD map system 110 completes verifying the discrepancy; 121 vehicle 150 determines 1118 whether to report the identified discrepancies . . . discrepancy threshold; 122 vehicle 150 transmits 1120 a discrepancy to the online HD map system 110 if it determines that the discrepancy is a significant discrepancy; 123 online HD map system 110 may request additional data (e.g., raw sensor data) associated with the discrepancy; 124 FIG. 11B is a flow chart illustrating an example process of a vehicle 150 verifying and updating existing occupancy maps; 125 vehicle 150 determines 1174 whether the updated local occupancy map needs verification . . . If a major difference in the OMap stored in the cloud is detected, the on-vehicle system may decide to report to the cloud; 127 cross-check the quality of the map . . . When a change is detected, it often needs to be validated by other vehicles before it's disseminated to other vehicles; see also FIG. 15 and corresponding description (i.e., ¶¶ 150 FIG. 15 illustrates the process 1500 of updating HD maps responsive to detecting a map discrepancy . . . vehicle 150 receives 1510 map data from the online HD map system 110 comprising HD maps . . . vehicle 150 determines 1540 whether there is a discrepancy between the sensor data and map data (wherein the map data is online map data that has been passed an out-of-vehicle check result as cited above and in the office action); 152; 153 determining 1540 whether there is a map discrepancy between the sensor data and map data, encoding 1550 information describing the discrepancy in a message, and sending 1560 the message to the online HD map system 110 may repeat 1570 periodically; 154 vehicle 150 may then receive 1580 a request from the online HD map system 110 requesting additional data describing the map discrepancy at the particular location; FIG. 14, wherein the maps received from by autonomous vehicles in the have undergone the iterative verification process (i.e., send updated map to autonomous vehicles 1416) are provided for the in-vehicle check result to ascertain a comparison result as cited above such that out-of-vehicle check results are continually compared with in-vehicle check results to ascertain comparison results (i.e., set of represented objects 906, 909 include out of vehicle checked results which are compared in vehicle for a comparison result 912/ 914; see also continually updated online map database 1168, Fig. 11B, resulting from out of vehicle check results, are input continually to vehicle for the OOV/ IV check 1154-1176, etc.). Accordingly, Applicants arguments are unpersuasive.
Claim Interpretation and Contingent Limitations
The pending claims contain at least one conditional limitation:
claim 9:
(1) “wherein, the method is carried out such that, when a deviation between the out-of-vehicle check result and the in-vehicle check result occurs, the ascertainment of the at least one action includes selecting at least one action from the following group of actions:
transferring the motor vehicle into a safe state,
temporary reduction of a performance of the motor vehicle,
inclusion of the out-of-vehicle check result in the digital map.”
Limitation (1) recited in claim 9 recites method steps that require a first limitation if a first condition happens and a second limitation if a second condition happens.
With respect to conditional limitations in such cases, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Accordingly, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to limitation (1). See MPEP 2111.04, II “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed . . . [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn as a result of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 consists entirely of a contingent limitation, wherein the limitations are not required since the claim does not require the condition occurs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 10, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 20180188045 to Wheeler et al. (Wheeler)
With respect to claims 1, 14 and 16, Wheeler discloses a method for checking a digital map of an environment of a motor vehicle, comprising the following steps:
(FIG. 1, 100 “HD map system”; FIG. 2 “vehicle computing system”, HD map system interface 280, local HD map store 275, map update API 285, localization API 250, FIG. 4 HD map system 110, map creation/ update/ encode/ accuracy management modules 410-440, HD map store 165, FIG. 5, FIG. 9-11B, FIG. 13-15 and corresponding descriptions, i.e., ¶¶ 6-7, 33, 35 map discrepancy, 52-55, 81-85 vehicle 150 compares 908 data associated with the objects detected by the vehicles to data associated with the objects on the maps to determine any discrepancies between the vehicle's 150 perception of its environment (i.e., the physical environment corresponding to the predetermined region) and the representation of the environment that is stored in the HD map store 165, 92, 96-99, 103, 119-123, 127, 130, 132, 139-140, 151-154, claim 1 “receiving, from an online system by a vehicle, a high definition map . . . comparing the first set of objects to the second set of objects; responsive to determining a first object of the first set matches a second object of the second set, sending a request to update the high definition map to increase a confidence value associated with the first object; claim 12-17 “receiving, from vehicles, verification records including verification information of a high definition map . . . updating the high definition map to include the geometric and semantic description of the new object associated with the confidence value)
transmitting the digital map by the motor vehicle to an out-of-vehicle checking system via a communication network and checking, by the out of vehicle checking system, the transmitted digital map to ascertain an out of vehicle check result;
(FIG. 1, 115a-d, transmission by vehicle to server 110 and corresponding description claims 12-20, digital map transmitted by vehicle is to server 110, FIG. 4 and corresponding description; ¶¶ 66 online HD map system 110 and the vehicle computing system 120 use data compression techniques for being able to store and transfer map data thereby reducing storage and transmission costs; 95-96, 122-123, 127, 132 each vehicle sends status update messages, or update messages, to the online HD Map system 110 periodically. The status update message includes metadata describing any map discrepancies identified by the vehicle indicating differences between the map data that the online HD map system provided to the vehicle and the sensor data that is received by the vehicle from its sensors.; vehicle transmit: 908-920, FIG. 9 and 1116-1122, FIG. 11)
receiving, by the motor vehicle, the out-of-vehicle check result of the digital map from the checking system via the communication network;
(125a-125d, FIG. 1 transmission of digital map via communication network after an out of vehicle check result; checking system process at out-of-vehicle checking system shown in at least FIG. 10 1002-1018; FIG. 10 is a flow chart illustrating an example process of an online HD map system 110 (e.g., the map update module 420) updating existing landmark maps, according to one embodiment. The online HD map system 110 receives 1002 verification records and associated data (e.g., raw sensor data) from vehicles 150; 101-109 online HD map system 110 removes 1006 outlier verification records and outlier raw sensor data. An outlier verification record is a verification record for which the verification result is inconsistent with other verification records for a particular location . . . HD map system 110 updates 1010 landmark objects based on the verification record types and raw sensor data in the group . . . the online HD map system 110 analyzes the raw sensor data associated with the mismatch records to detect the landmark object that is not represented in the landmark map 520. The HD map system 110 may further classify the detected landmark object. The online HD map system 110 determines a confidence value for the detected object using the associated raw sensor data . . . HD map system 110 determines 1012 whether the confidence value associated with the landmark object is below a threshold confidence value. The HD map system 110 uses different threshold confidence values for different landmark objects . . . HD map system 110 determines 1012 whether the confidence value associated with the landmark object is below a threshold confidence value. The HD map system 110 uses different threshold confidence values for different landmark objects . . . the online HD map system 110 verifies the existing occupancy maps and updates the existing occupancy maps . . . online HD map system 100 distributes copies of the existing occupancy maps or a portion thereof to vehicles 150)
checking the digital map by the motor vehicle based on environment sensor data representing the environment of the motor vehicle from an environment sensor system of the motor vehicle to ascertain an in-vehicle check result and comparing the out-of-vehicle check result with the in- vehicle check result to ascertain a comparison result;
(109 online HD map system 100 distributes copies of the existing occupancy maps or a portion thereof to vehicles 150 and the vehicles 150 verify the local copies of the existing occupancy maps or the portion thereof. The online HD map system 100 updates the occupancy maps based on the verification results. In some implementations, the vehicles 150 analyzes the verification results, determines whether the existing occupancy maps should be updated based on the verification results, and sends information to the online HD map system 100 for use to update the existing occupancy maps . . . vehicles 150 send summaries of the verification results to the online HD map system 100, the online HD map system 100 analyzes the summaries of the verification results to determine whether the existing occupancy maps should be updated, requests information needed to update the existing occupancy maps from the vehicles 150, and updates the existing occupancy maps using the requested information; FIG. 11A-11B; 110-120 FIG. 11A is a flow chart illustrating an example process of a vehicle 150 verifying and updating existing occupancy maps, according to one embodiment. The vehicle 150 receives 1102 sensor data from the vehicle sensors 105. The vehicle 150 receives the sensor data concurrently with the vehicle 150 traveling along a route. As described previously, the sensor data (e.g., the sensor data 230) includes, among others, image data, location data, vehicle motion data, and LIDAR scanner data . . . vehicle 150 compares 1116 the updated occupancy map to the existing occupancy map (i.e., the occupancy map stored in the local HD map store 275) to identify one or more discrepancies. The updated occupancy map includes 3D representations of objects in the environment surrounding the vehicle 150 detected from the sensor data. The occupancy map stored locally includes representations of objects in the environment previously detected. A discrepancy includes any object detected from the sensor data but not previously detected, any object previously detected but not detected from the sensor data, or differences between any object detected from the sensor data and also previously detected. vehicle 150 may verify a particular discrepancy. The verification can be performed in several ways; 127 amount of data needed to cross-check the quality of map updates detected. When a change is detected, it often needs to be validated by other vehicles before it's disseminated to other vehicles); and
ascertaining at least one action to be carried out by the motor vehicle based on the comparison result.
(¶¶ 120 vehicle 150 may notify the human reviewer to verify visible information that the vehicle 150 determines as likely to be inaccurate; 121 vehicle 150 determines 1118 whether to report the identified discrepancies. The vehicle compares the identified discrepancies to a discrepancy threshold to determine whether any discrepancy is significant or if the identified discrepancies are collectively significant. For example, the vehicle 150 calculates a significance value for a particular discrepancy according to predetermined rules and compares the significance value to a threshold value to evaluate whether the discrepancy is significant; 122 vehicle 150 transmits 1120 a discrepancy to the online HD map system 110 if it determines that the discrepancy is a significant discrepancy. The vehicle may send raw sensor data associated with the discrepancy to the online HD map system 110 along with the discrepancy. The vehicle 150 stores 1122 the updated occupancy map locally in the local HD map store 275; 125 If a major difference in the OMap stored in the cloud is detected, the on-vehicle system may decide to report to the cloud)
[[see also citations explained more in arguments above, repeated here: Wheeler discloses “comparing the out-of-vehicle check result with the in-vehicle check result to ascertain a comparison result” Out of vehicle check results are determined at online HD map system 110. See FIG. 4, map update module 420, map accuracy management module 450, etc.; i.e, online verification at OHDM in one example is shown in Fig. FIG. 10.
In-vehicle check results are determined at vehicle computing system 120. See FIG. 2, Map update API, 285; in vehicle verification in FIG. 9 (i.e., ¶ 79 “FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustrating an example process of a vehicle 150 verifying existing landmark maps, according to one embodiment., i.e.., the existing landmark maps are the maps resulting from an out of vehicle check result shown in Fig. 10, wherein the map verification at the vehicle and the OHDM are continually transmitted back and forth and refined such that there is a continual “comparing the out-of-vehicle check result with the in-vehicle check result to ascertain a comparison result”).
For example, the OHDM performs an out of vehicle check result which is used to update the online map database system, which is further used transmitted to vehicles, which is further used to repeat the process of verifying exiting maps in a continual loop such that confidence values of the maps are continually adjusted by ascertaining comparison results, i.e., Applicants assertion that in vehicle verification and out of vehicle verification are siloed and “two separate processes” that do not interact with one another is incorrect.
(¶¶ 101-103 online HD map system 110 removes any identified outlier verification records . . . online HD map system 110 identifies outlier verification records . . . online HD map system 110 may apply data outlier detection techniques such as density-based techniques, subspace-based outlier detection, replicator neural networks, cluster analysis-based outlier detection, and the like to identify outlier verification records and outlier raw sensor data. Outlier verification records and outlier sensor data are likely to be caused by errors. By removing both of these, the online HD map system 110 improves the reliability as well as the accuracy of the HD maps . . . HD map system 110 updates 1010 landmark objects based on the verification record types and raw sensor data in the group. For example, the online HD map system 110 increases the confidence value associated with each landmark object that corresponds to one or more match records . . . online HD map system 110 decreases the confidence value associated with each landmark object that corresponds to one or more mismatch records)
In addition, further comparison result checks occur by determining the resultant confidence value is above a threshold (¶¶ 104 – 109 if the confidence value is below a threshold . . . verify whether the landmark object as presented in the HD map 110 is accurate or should be updated . . . HD map system 110 determines 1016 a set of changes to the HD map 510, if the confidence value is above the threshold value . . . HD map system 110 applies the set of changes to the HD map 510 to update the map . . . the online HD map system 110 verifies the existing occupancy maps and updates the existing occupancy maps . . . online HD map system 100 distributes copies of the existing occupancy maps or a portion thereof to vehicles 150 and the vehicles 150 verify the local copies of the existing occupancy maps or the portion thereof. The online HD map system 100 updates the occupancy maps based on the verification results . . . the vehicles 150 analyzes the verification results, determines whether the existing occupancy maps should be updated based on the verification results, and sends information to the online HD map system 100 for use to update the existing occupancy maps. The online HD map system 100 uses the received information to update the existing landmark maps. In some implementations, the vehicles 150 send summaries of the verification results to the online HD map system 100, the online HD map system 100 analyzes the summaries of the verification results to determine whether the existing occupancy maps should be updated, requests information needed to update the existing occupancy maps from the vehicles 150, and updates the existing occupancy maps using the requested information; similarly see FIG. 11A -11B and corresponding description (i.e., ¶¶ 110-111, 114-116 (verification can occur either at vehicle or at online HD map system); 119 vehicle 150 compares 1116 the updated occupancy map to the existing occupancy map (i.e., the occupancy map stored in the local HD map store 275) to identify one or more discrepancies; 120 HD map system 110 completes verifying the discrepancy; 121 vehicle 150 determines 1118 whether to report the identified discrepancies . . . discrepancy threshold; 122 vehicle 150 transmits 1120 a discrepancy to the online HD map system 110 if it determines that the discrepancy is a significant discrepancy; 123 online HD map system 110 may request additional data (e.g., raw sensor data) associated with the discrepancy; 124 FIG. 11B is a flow chart illustrating an example process of a vehicle 150 verifying and updating existing occupancy maps; 125 vehicle 150 determines 1174 whether the updated local occupancy map needs verification . . . If a major difference in the OMap stored in the cloud is detected, the on-vehicle system may decide to report to the cloud; 127 cross-check the quality of the map . . . When a change is detected, it often needs to be validated by other vehicles before it's disseminated to other vehicles; see also FIG. 15 and corresponding description (i.e., ¶¶ 150 FIG. 15 illustrates the process 1500 of updating HD maps responsive to detecting a map discrepancy . . . vehicle 150 receives 1510 map data from the online HD map system 110 comprising HD maps . . . vehicle 150 determines 1540 whether there is a discrepancy between the sensor data and map data (wherein the map data is online map data that has been passed an out-of-vehicle check result as cited above and in the office action); 152; 153 determining 1540 whether there is a map discrepancy between the sensor data and map data, encoding 1550 information describing the discrepancy in a message, and sending 1560 the message to the online HD map system 110 may repeat 1570 periodically; 154 vehicle 150 may then receive 1580 a request from the online HD map system 110 requesting additional data describing the map discrepancy at the particular location; FIG. 14, wherein the maps received from by autonomous vehicles in the have undergone the iterative verification process (i.e., send updated map to autonomous vehicles 1416) are provided for the in-vehicle check result to ascertain a comparison result as cited above such that out-of-vehicle check results are continually compared with in-vehicle check results to ascertain comparison results (i.e., set of represented objects 906, 909 include out of vehicle checked results which are compared in vehicle for a comparison result 912/ 914; see also continually updated online map database 1168, Fig. 11B, resulting from out of vehicle check results, are input continually to vehicle for the OOV/ IV check 1154-1176, etc.)]]
With respect to claim 2, Wheeler discloses wherein out-of-vehicle metadata of the out-of-vehicle check result are received by the motor vehicle from the checking system via the communication network, wherein at least one of the steps of the comparison and the ascertainment of the at least one action is carried out based on the out-of-vehicle metadata.
(FIG. 13 map discrepancy analysis module 1310 uses metadata from other vehicles to perform the out of vehicle check result, ¶¶ 127 vehicle computing system interacts with the online HD map system to ensure that enough data is collected to update maps . . . amount of data needed to cross-check the quality of map updates detected. When a change is detected, it often needs to be validated by other vehicles before it's disseminated to other vehicles; 130-137 map data request module 1330, as described below, when selecting a vehicle 150 . . . different vehicles reporting different map discrepancies may refer to the same discrepancy . . . select vehicles for requesting data by the online HD map system 110 . . . each vehicle sends status update messages, or update messages, to the online HD Map system 110 periodically. The status update message includes metadata describing any map discrepancies identified by the vehicle indicating differences between the map data that the online HD map system provided to the vehicle and the sensor data that is received by the vehicle from its sensor . . . map data collection 460 to verify if a map discrepancy was erroneously reported by a vehicle . . . map discrepancy analysis module 1310 analyzes data received from vehicles as part of the status update messages to determine whether the vehicle reported a map discrepancy. If the map discrepancy analysis module 1310 determines that a status update message received from a vehicle describes a discrepancy, the map discrepancy analysis module 1310 further analyzes the reported map discrepancy . . . map data collection module 460 stores information describing the data received from vehicles in the vehicle data store 1340 . . . collection module 460 should send a request to a vehicle to provide additional map data for a specific location . . . map data request module 1330 sends a request via the vehicle interface module 160 and also receives additional map data via the vehicle interface module 160 . . . preferentially selects vehicles 150 which have data for the specific location; 143 To properly update an HD map in response to an update request, additional data from more than one vehicle may be required. In such cases the map data request module 1330 requests additional data from a plurality of vehicles 150; 55 upon receiving a message requesting data about a particular location along the vehicle's 150 route, the map discrepancy module 290 instructs vehicle sensors 105 to collect and report that data to the map discrepancy module 290; 78 HD map system 100 analyzes the summaries of the verification results to determine whether the existing landmark maps should be updated, requests information needed to update the existing landmark maps from the vehicles 150”; 106 HD map system 110 associates the change record with a timestamp, change specifics (e.g., an attribute change, removal, addition), a change source (e.g., whether the change is requested by a human viewer, a human reviewer ID, whether the change is determined by an algorithm, the algorithm ID, etc.), input provided by a human reviewer, a data source (e.g., a vehicle 150 that provides the verification records, a vehicle that provides the raw sensor data, sensors associated with the raw sensor data))
(¶ 85 associated confidence value can be obtained from the local HD map store 275; 103-107)
With respect to claim 3, Wheeler discloses wherein in-vehicle metadata of the in-vehicle check result are ascertained by the motor vehicle, wherein at least one of the steps of the comparison and the ascertainment of the at least one action is carried out based on the in-vehicle metadata.
(¶ 132 each vehicle sends status update messages, or update messages, to the online HD Map system 110 periodically. The status update message includes metadata describing any map discrepancies identified by the vehicle indicating differences between the map data that the online HD map system provided to the vehicle and the sensor data that is received by the vehicle from its sensor; 53 update message, which may comprise a vehicle identifier (ID), one or more timestamps, a route traveled, lane element IDs of lane elements traversed, a type of discrepancy, a magnitude of discrepancy, a discrepancy fingerprint to help identify duplicate discrepancy alert messages, a size of message, and so on; 84 landmark match/ mismatch created by vehicle using timestamp, object ID, vehicle ID, current speed, current location, etc.; 91)
With respect to claim 4, Wheeler discloses the metadata describe one or more of the following information items:
confidence of the check result,
integrity of the check result,
age of the check result,
reliability of the check result with regard to a possible manipulation.
(¶ 132 “update message includes metadata describing any map discrepancies identified by the vehicle indicating differences between the map data that the online HD map system . . . these status messages can allow older data from a particular area to be aged out and replaced with newer about that area so that the HD map includes the most recent data that is possible”; 138 Outdated map alerts comprise notifications to the map data collection module 460, such as from the map update module 420, which indicate that a portion of an HD map is outdated and requires updating with new information. It is desirable for HD map data to be up to date. This requires at least periodic updating of the HD map data. Not all HD map data is of the same age, with some data having been collected earlier than other data. The online HD map system 110 may track how old HD map data is. For each lane element the online HD map system 110 may record the newest and oldest times data was used to build that lane element, for example a timestamp of when the oldest used data was collected and a similar timestamp for the newest used data. An outdated map alert may be sent requesting new map data for a lane element if either the oldest timestamp or newest timestamp of that lane element's data is older than a respective threshold age; 53 update message, which may comprise a vehicle identifier (ID), one or more timestamps, a route traveled, lane element IDs of lane elements traversed, a type of discrepancy, a magnitude of discrepancy, a discrepancy fingerprint to help identify duplicate discrepancy alert messages, a size of message, and so on; 84 landmark match/ mismatch created by vehicle using timestamp, object ID, vehicle ID, current speed, current location, etc.)
(¶ 64 “information included in a landmark map is associated with a confidence value measuring a probability of a representation being accurate”)
With respect to claim 5, Wheeler discloses
wherein the motor vehicle is localized in the digital map by the motor vehicle to determine a location of the motor vehicle in the digital map, and
(¶¶ 46-47 localization APIs 250 include a localize API that determines an accurate location of the vehicle within the HD Map . . . The localize API receives inputs comprising one or more of, location provided by GPS, vehicle motion data provided by IMU, LIDAR scanner data, and camera images. The localize API returns an accurate location of the vehicle as latitude and longitude coordinates. The coordinates returned by the localize API are more accurate compared to the GPS coordinates used as input, for example, the output of the localize API may have precision range from 5-10 cm; 69 HD map system 110 represents a geographic region using an object or a data record that comprises various attributes including . . . latitude and longitude)
wherein the checking of the digital map by the motor vehicle is carried out based on the determined location.
(81-84 vehicle 150 compares the latitude and longitude coordinates of detected traffic signs to latitudes and longitudes of traffic signs on the map to determine any matches . . . match refers to a difference between data being within a predetermined threshold, match record includes the current location of the vehicle 150 and a current timestamp; 91, 100-103, 110-114, 121, 124, 136-137)
With respect to claim 6, Wheeler discloses
wherein a location of the motor vehicle in the digital map is received by the motor vehicle from the checking system via the communication network.
(81-84 vehicle 150 compares the latitude and longitude coordinates of detected traffic signs to latitudes and longitudes of traffic signs on the map to determine any matches . . . match refers to a difference between data being within a predetermined threshold, match record includes the current location of the vehicle 150 and a current timestamp; 91, 100-103, 110-114, 121, 124, 136-137)
With respect to claim 7, Wheeler discloses
wherein a location of the motor vehicle in the digital map is received by the motor vehicle from the checking system via the communication network, and
wherein the location determined by the motor vehicle is compared with the location received from the checking system to check the localization by the motor vehicle.
(81-84 vehicle 150 compares the latitude and longitude coordinates of detected traffic signs to latitudes and longitudes of traffic signs on the map to determine any matches . . . match refers to a difference between data being within a predetermined threshold, match record includes the current location of the vehicle 150 and a current timestamp; 91, 100-103, 110-114, 121, 124, 136-137)
With respect to claim 8, Wheeler discloses wherein at least one of the steps of the comparison and the ascertainment of the at least one action is carried out based on the location received from the checking system.
(81-84 vehicle 150 compares the latitude and longitude coordinates of detected traffic signs to latitudes and longitudes of traffic signs on the map to determine any matches . . . match refers to a difference between data being within a predetermined threshold, match record includes the current location of the vehicle 150 and a current timestamp; 91, 100-103, 110-114, 121, 124, 136-137)
With respect to claim 9, as noted above in the conditional limitation and 112(d) sections, claim 9 fails to recite any further limitations. Accordingly, Wheeler discloses the requirements of claim 9.
In addition, Wheeler discloses wherein, the method is carried out such that, when a deviation between the out-of-vehicle check result and the in-vehicle check result, the ascertainment of the at least one action includes selecting at least one action from the following group of actions:
transferring the motor vehicle into a safe state,
temporary reduction of a performance of the motor vehicle,
inclusion of the out-of-vehicle check result in the digital map.
(i.e., verification between OOV map and local / occupancy map can detect discrepancies wherein the OOV map check result alters the local/ occupancy map – FIG. 11A 1114-1122, FIG. 2 map update API 285, local HD map store 275 and corresponding descriptions, ¶¶ 52-57, 77-78, 84-85, 88, 91-96, 112, 122, 125).
With respect to claims 10 and 15, Wheeler discloses a method for checking a digital map of an environment of a motor vehicle, comprising the following steps:
receiving the digital map transmitted from the motor vehicle via a communication network using an out-of-vehicle checking system;
(FIG. 1, 115a-d, transmission by vehicle to server 110 and corresponding description claims 12-20, digital map transmitted by vehicle is to server 110, FIG. 4 and corresponding description; ¶¶ 66 online HD map system 110 and the vehicle computing system 120 use data compression techniques for being able to store and transfer map data thereby reducing storage and transmission costs; 95-96, 122-123, 127, 132 each vehicle sends status update messages, or update messages, to the online HD Map system 110 periodically. The status update message includes metadata describing any map discrepancies identified by the vehicle indicating differences between the map data that the online HD map system provided to the vehicle and the sensor data that is received by the vehicle from its sensors.; vehicle transmit: 908-920, FIG. 9 and 1116-1122, FIG. 11)
checking the received digital map based on a digital reference map using the checking system to ascertain an out-of-vehicle check result; and
(checking system process at out-of-vehicle checking system shown in at least FIG. 10 1002-1018; FIG. 10 is a flow chart illustrating an example process of an online HD map system 110 (e.g., the map update module 420) updating existing landmark maps, according to one embodiment. The online HD map system 110 receives 1002 verification records and associated data (e.g., raw sensor data) from vehicles 150; 101-109 online HD map system 110 removes 1006 outlier verification records and outlier raw sensor data. An outlier verification record is a verification record for which the verification result is inconsistent with other verification records for a particular location . . . HD map system 110 updates 1010 landmark objects based on the verification record types and raw sensor data in the group . . . the online HD map system 110 analyzes the raw sensor data associated with the mismatch records to detect the landmark object that is not represented in the landmark map 520. The HD map system 110 may further classify the detected landmark object. The online HD map system 110 determines a confidence value for the detected object using the associated raw sensor data . . . HD map system 110 determines 1012 whether the confidence value associated with the landmark object is below a threshold confidence value. The HD map system 110 uses different threshold confidence values for different landmark objects . . . HD map system 110 determines 1012 whether the confidence value associated with the landmark object is below a threshold confidence value. The HD map system 110 uses different threshold confidence values for different landmark objects . . . the online HD map system 110 verifies the existing occupancy maps and updates the existing occupancy maps . . . online HD map system 100 distributes copies of the existing occupancy maps or a portion thereof to vehicles 150)
transmitting the out-of-vehicle check result using the checking system, to the motor vehicle via the communication network.
(125a-125d, FIG. 1 transmission of digital map via communication network after an out of vehicle check result; ¶¶ 103-109 HD online map system 110 checks confidence of results and sends high confidence results to motor vehicles 150a-d to update their local maps, i.e., 109 online HD map system 100 distributes copies of the existing occupancy maps or a portion thereof to vehicles 150 and the vehicles 150 verify the local copies of the existing occupancy maps or the portion thereof. The online HD map system 100 updates the occupancy maps based on the verification results; 1416, Fig. 4; 149 online HD map system 110 then sends 1416 the updated HD map to the plurality of vehicles so that they may use a more accurate HD map while driving)
Previously Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200249032 to Lee et al. (Lee) is cited to disclose
[0023] As shown in FIG. 2A, the high-definition map updating apparatus 100 may be mounted on a vehicle 20 traveling on a road 10. In some cases, unlike FIG. 2A, all or a part of the other constitutive elements except for the photographing device 110 may be installed in another place spaced apart from the vehicle 20. Referring to FIG. 2B, in the high definition map updating apparatus 100 according to another embodiment, the photographing device 110, the coordinate system transformation unit 120, and the local landmark map generation unit 130 are integrally formed and equipped on a plurality of vehicles 20, respectively, and the updating unit 140 implemented in a high definition map updating server S of the remote location may also use information transmitted from the high definition map updating apparatus 100 of each vehicle 20 to perform the update of the high definition map.
US 20210003420 to Hamperl et al. (Hamp), assigned to Continental discloses a substantially similar invention with local and remote map verification of objects detected
US 20200292327 to Rabel et al. (Rabel) can be used for transmitting a map (maplet) from a vehicle to a server. Rabel further discloses many aspects of the claimed invention including map verification, probe vehicle data collection, etc.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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