DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-5 are pending examination.
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
In regards to 101 rejection, Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the claims are amended to overcome the abstract idea rejection. The examiner disagrees with the applicant assertion. The applicant amended to simply clarify that there should be enough amount of data in the cluster to update the map and this does not change anything. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 and hence the rejection is maintained.
In regards to 103 rejection, Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that: Williamson does not disclose or suggest wherein the predefined criteria includes a requirement that the data sets assigned to the subregion satisfy a statistical sufficiency condition specifying a minimum quantity of data sets from which statistically relevant information are derived.
The prior art Williamson clearly discloses in Para [0062]( “Optionally, sensor data may be aggregated for a region, with different changes identified within that region, and the aggregation can continue until a threshold volume of changes to the region with at least a minimum confidence level to update that particular region of the map in the map database 308.”) that certain number of data sets needs to be in the cluster in order to perform the updates.
The examiner believes he has responded to all the arguments presented by the applicant at this time. However, if the applicant believes that the examiner has missed any arguments to respond, the applicant is invited to call the examiner directly to expedite the process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to judicial exception involving abstract ideas, mental concepts without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1-3 are directed to a method.
Claim 4 is directed to a device claim.
Claim 5 is a CRM Claim.
Therefore, claims 1-5 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
Step 2A, Prong I of the 2019 Patent Examiner’s Guide (PEG) analyzes the claims to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls into one of the following groups of abstract ideas:
a) mathematical concepts
[Symbol font/0xB7] mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations
b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or
[Symbol font/0xB7] fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
[Symbol font/0xB7] commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
[Symbol font/0xB7] managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
c) mental processes.
[Symbol font/0xB7] concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The following claims include limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used to represent additional claims that merely elaborate on the recited abstract ideas for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas: “A method for updating and providing a map, the method comprising the following steps:
receiving a plurality of data sets from a plurality of vehicles, wherein each of the data sets includes environment data values and position data values, wherein the environment data values represent an environment of a corresponding vehicle of the vehicles, wherein the position data values represent a position indication of the corresponding vehicle;
assigning the data sets to different data set groups depending on the position indication, wherein each of the data set groups is assigned to a subregion of the map;
updating all subregions of the map in which the assigned data set groups include a sufficient quantity of data sets according to predefined criteria;
creating the map depending on the updated subregions; and providing the map”.
Claims 4 and 5 recites similar abstract ideas.
Regarding Claims 1, 4 and 5:
The claims are directed to abstract idea of collecting, organizing, analyzing and displaying data, specifically:
Receiving environment and position data from vehicles
Assigning the data to group based on location
Determining whether the data in each group meets certain criteria
Updating a map based on that determination
And then providing the map.
Dependent Claims 2-3 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in Claim 1.
Accordingly Claims 1-5 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
Step 2A, Prong II of the 2019 PEG analyzes the claims to determine whether the claim recites any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The following claims recite additional limitations:
Claim 4 recites the following additional limitations: “computing unit and a computer”
The examiner submits that the recited limitations, emphasized above, do not integrate the aforementioned abstract ideas into a practical application.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, the additional limitation of “computing unit and a computer” are examples of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitations do not:
• Reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field – (MPEP § 2106.05(a))
• Apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
• Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – (MPEP § 2106.05(b))
• Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – (MPEP § 2106.05(c))
• Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – (MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Dependent claims 2-3 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in claims 1, but do not provide additional elements, and so do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-5 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
101 Analysis: Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claims 1-5 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of outlined in Step 2A performing functions as designed simply accomplishes execution of the abstract ideas.
Further, the additional limitation of “computing unit and a computer” in claim 4 and 5 does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim).
Therefore, the additional limitations of claims 1-5 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, claims 1-5 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Hence Claims 1-5 are directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept and is thus ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention Williamson (US2024/0151549) and herein after will be referred as Williamson.
Regarding Claim 1, Williamson teaches a method for updating and providing a map (Figure 4), the method comprising the following steps:
receiving a plurality of data sets from a plurality of vehicles, wherein each of the data sets includes environment data values and position data values, wherein the environment data values represent an environment of a corresponding vehicle of the vehicles, wherein the position data values represent a position indication of the corresponding vehicle (Para [0038] : “probe data (e.g., collected by mobile device 114) is representative of the location of a vehicle at a respective point in time and may be collected while a vehicle is traveling along a route. The probe data may also include speed and direction in some embodiments, such as when probe data is used to facilitate vehicle traffic speed determination. While probe data is described herein as being vehicle probe data, example embodiments may be implemented with pedestrian probe data, marine vehicle probe data, or non-motorized vehicle probe data (e.g., from bicycles, skateboards, horseback, etc.). According to the example embodiment described below with the probe data being from motorized vehicles traveling along roadways, the probe data may include, without limitation, location data, (e.g. a latitudinal, longitudinal position, and/or height, GPS coordinates, proximity readings associated with a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, or the like), rate of travel, (e.g. speed), direction of travel, (e.g. heading, cardinal direction, or the like), device identifier, (e.g. vehicle identifier, user identifier, or the like), a time stamp associated with the data collection, or the like. The mobile device 114, may be any device capable of collecting the aforementioned probe data. Some examples of the mobile device 114 may include specialized vehicle mapping equipment, navigational systems, mobile devices, such as phones or personal data assistants, or the like.”);
assigning the data sets to different data set groups depending on the position indication, wherein each of the data set groups is assigned to a subregion of the map (Para [0062]: “sensor data may be aggregated for a region, with different changes identified within that region, and the aggregation can continue until a threshold volume of changes to the region with at least a minimum confidence level to update that particular region of the map in the map database 308. Changes to the map database from the aggregated sensor data can include the novel data together with context or a margin about the novel data. Changes to the map data are inherently different from the map data, such that context or a margin about the changed data is used to properly locate the changed data within the map data.”);
updating all subregions of the map in which the assigned data set groups include a sufficient quantity of data sets according to predefined criteria; creating the map depending on the updated subregions; and providing the map (Para [0063]: “Embodiments described herein function to filter sensor data in a manner that reduces processing requirements and improves the efficiency of map generation and healing through limiting the volume of data used to update and generate map data. Embodiments receive data from various sources and establish if the sensor data is the same as a model, which is distinct from the underlying map data. Data that is the same can be used for decay logic together with a timestamp of the data observation, or used to note the freshness of the model. Data that is different from the underlying data is aggregated to arrive at updated map content in a consistent and automatic manner. The output is map data with an estimate of the map objects and the true object position within the map geometry. A map data update can be triggered by a predetermined threshold, such as enough observations aggregated in the aggregated update data 316 of FIG. 4 sufficient to trigger a map update may be dependent upon characteristics of the different data sources, such as the reliability or weight of the data source. Further, the map updates can be updated in cycles, which may be based on drives. When a sufficient number of drives are available (e.g., for a road segment or a geographic region) the update process may be triggered. Embodiments may be further tuned to support a freshness requirement of the map product such that an update could be triggered by any frequency needed to maintain the freshness requirement.”).
Williamson also teaches wherein the predefined criteria includes a requirement that the data sets assigned to the subregion satisfy a statistical sufficiency condition specifying a minimum quantity of data sets from which statistically relevant information are derived (Para [0062] : “Optionally, sensor data may be aggregated for a region, with different changes identified within that region, and the aggregation can continue until a threshold volume of changes to the region with at least a minimum confidence level to update that particular region of the map in the map database 308.”).
Similarly Claim 4 and 5 are rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 2, Williamson teaches the method according to claim 1.
Williamson also teaches wherein each position indication represents a position and/or a position progression of the corresponding vehicle (Para 0038).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Denich et al. (US20240177598) and herein after will be referred as Denich.
Regarding Claim 3, Williamson teaches the method according to claim 1.
Denich teaches wherein further data sets are additionally received from traffic monitoring devices and/or external servers, including weather stations (Para [0030]: “The method 1 can transmit 112, from the server outside the vehicle to the vehicle, a response message comprising the traffic information for the navigation map of the vehicle if the calculated volume of change exceeds a predefined threshold value. If the calculated volume of change does not exceed the predefined threshold value, the method can transmit, from the server outside the vehicle to the vehicle, a response message comprising an indication that the predefined threshold value has not been exceeded. Finally, the method 1 can update 114, by means of the vehicle, the traffic information relating to the vehicle on the basis of the transmitted response message.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williamson to incorporate the teachings of Denich to include external servers/ traffic monitoring devices. Doing so would further more optimize the navigation of vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668