DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2024 and 08/20/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II – Claims 11-20, drawn to a system and processor related to updating a map, in the reply filed on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant has canceled claims 1-10 outlining Invention I in the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 09/29/2025. Applicant has added claims 21-30, which appear to be drawn towards elected Invention II.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“The one or more processing units” in claims 13, 14, 16, and 17, which are at least defined in Par. [00198; 00216; 00222; 00292; 00299; 00302; 00308; 00339; 00341; 00345; 00357; 00359; 00360; 00363; 00365; 00377-00379; 00380-00385] that either define various, specific processing units or re-recite the claim language without attributing which of the specific processing units are included in the recitation of the one or more processing units and do perform the functions of the claims in which they appear.
The ambiguity of the preambles in which the units are claimed coupled with a lack of antecedent basis for the claim terms renders the interpretation of these units to be challenging. As a result, the units are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of Written Description and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), which are elaborated upon below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 12, 19, and 23, Applicant recites a metric value having a number of “instances” associated with the one or more “instances” of data along with a threshold number of “instances” and then ambiguously refers to satisfying a threshold by “determining that the number of instances is equal to or greater than the threshold number of instances.” It is unclear what Applicant is referring to regarding the multiple-claimed “instances” and in evaluating the four corners of the disclosure, it does not appear that Applicant has sufficient written description of the claimed determining of the “number of instances”/”threshold number of instances” since these instances are not readily discernable as to what these instances constitute. Absent clear discussion/depiction of the claimed “number of instances”/”threshold number of instances” with clear written description support, Applicant does not have possession of the claimed subject matter. As a result, claims 12, 19, and 23 do not have written description support for the “number of instances” since no definition of these instances can be readily ascertained, do not have written descriptive support that draws a nexus between the remaining claimed subject matter, and do not have written description support for their inclusion/understanding in the inventions claimed within these claims.
Claims 13 and 24 recite a “tracker” which appears only in Par. [0043] and [0045] of Applicant’s specification. No details surrounding the structure, performance, or other identifying characteristics of the “tracker” are found, discussed, or alluded to in the specification in such a way that the appropriate written description support for the claimed language can be ascertained in an unambiguous manner. Where the specification leaves the reader to speculation over the meaning, configuration, and ability to clearly ascertain the content of the claimed subject matter, the claims do not enjoy sufficient written descriptive support and Applicant does not have possession of the claimed subject matter.
Claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 recite “the one or more processing units,” which are at least defined in Par. [00198; 00216; 00222; 00292; 00299; 00302; 00308; 00339; 00341; 00345; 00357; 00359; 00360; 00363; 00365; 00377-00379; 00380-00385] that either define various, specific processing units or re-recite the claim language without attributing which of the specific processing units are included in the recitation of the one or more processing units and do perform the functions of the claims in which they appear. Further, claim 11, from which each of these claims depends, recites broadly “one or more processors” and does not constitute the same subject matter, thus creating a void in understanding the nexus of these claims with claim 11. Based on the breadth of the claimed functions and lack of tying the claimed “one or more processing units” to the specifically claimed functions within their respective claims and claim 11, these claims do not enjoy written description support sufficient to show possession of the claimed subject matter. The drawings do not cure the deficiencies of the specification to allow a reader to readily understand the definitions/scope of the claimed subject matter. The claims should be amended to remove the unsupported subject matter or canceled.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of Written Description based on its dependence on claim 19.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For similar reasons outlined in the rejections of claims 12, 19, and 23 in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Written Description rejections above, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for reciting broad/ambiguous terms that do not have sufficient support in the specification and/or drawings. The metes and bounds of the “number of instances”/”threshold number of instances” and “tracker” cannot be readily ascertained from the disclosure. Specifically, it is unclear as to the definition of the “number of instances”/”threshold number of instances” and the “tracker” does not have any structural or relational disclosure as to where it is housed within the claimed system. As a result, the scope of the claims is rendered indefinite.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected as being indefinite because claim 14 recites “the one or more processing units are further to: obtain location data associated with one or more machines that generated the one or more instances of data.” The one or more processing units does not enjoy sufficient antecedent basis to allow a reader to unambiguously understand the scope of the claim. Also, the claim introduces “machines” that generated previously claimed instances of data in the past-tense which creates ambiguity between the scope of the requirements for interpreting and treating claims 11 and 14 with prior art. Where claim 11 did not require machines, claim 14 now does, which creates ambiguity as to what is actually required by claim 11 regarding the source of the data.
Claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected as being indefinite for reciting “the one or more processing units,” which are at least defined in Par. [00198; 00216; 00222; 00292; 00299; 00302; 00308; 00339; 00341; 00345; 00357; 00359; 00360; 00363; 00365; 00377-00379; 00380-00385] that either define various, specific processing units or re-recite the claim language without attributing which of the specific processing units are included in the recitation of the one or more processing units and do perform the functions of the claims in which they appear.
There is no antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims and it is unclear as to which units Applicant is intending to refer. While claim 11 recites a system comprising one or more processors, the term “processing units” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and would constitute different/more specific componentry than the claimed one or more processors. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to refer back to the one or more processors because the claim language is inconsistent and has separate claim interpretations. This also creates retroactive reference to claim 11 that creates ambiguity as to the processor-related language that Applicant wishes to claim. The preamble also recites the transitional phrase “are further to,” which is not clear as to whether the claim is intended to be open-ended or closed. Correction of the claims or clarification of the metes and bounds of these claims is required.
Claims 15, 18, and 20 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite based on their dependence from claims 11 and 19, which have been rejected above.
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 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
35 U.S.C. 101 Analysis – Step 1
Per MPEP 2106.03, the claims must be directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Per step 1, the claims are directed to a system (independent claim 11), one or more processors (independent claim 19), and a method (independent claim 22), which meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 1 as being directed towards statutory categories of invention; however, the claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent Claim 11 is further evaluated below as a representative independent claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
35 U.S.C. 101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Per MPEP 2106 III (Step 2A Prong I of flowchart), the claims are to be subsequently analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one or more of the following groups of abstract ideas: a.) mathematical concepts, b.) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c.) mental processes.
The independent claims recite a related system, processor(s), and method and recite subject matter that is substantially similar in scope. The Examiner uses claim 11 as a representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Claim 11
“A system comprising:
one or more processors to:
store one or more instances of data representing a portion of an environment that is associated with a portion of a map;
determine, based at least on the one or more instances of data, at least a metric value associated with the portion of the map;
determine that the metric value satisfies a threshold; and
cause, based at least on the metric value satisfying the threshold and using the one or more instances of data, the portion of the map to be updated.”
The above-underlined portions of the claim are considered to be an abstract idea falling within the mental process grouping which can be reasonably be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. Given broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, each of the elements of: storing one or more instances or data associated with a map, determining a metric value associated with a map based on data, determine a metric satisfies a threshold, and causing a portion of a map to be updated based on meeting a metric value threshold and using data are all capable of being accomplished in the human mind through observation, judgment, and memory recordation, which can all be reasonably performed in the human mind based on the breadth of the claims and lack of technical environment/complexity claimed.
Applicant’s own specification and/or the breadth of the claims supports the interpretation of the claim language to encompass mental processes. For example, the storing one or more instances of data recited in claim 11 encompasses a person making mental observation and performing data acquisition to modify a map using pen and paper. The metric value determining step can be accomplished through mental evaluation. Determining that the metric value meets a threshold in a mental evaluation, which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. Lastly, the “causing” merely constitutes a command, which requires only a mental output from the previous mental evaluations, thus claiming only the mental evaluative result of the mental process steps from which it depends. Similarly, the “causing” step, if interpreted as some actual reduction to a tangible action, can be easily performed by pen and paper by updating a physical map after the preceding mental evaluation steps.
It should be noted that Applicant’s specification (At least at Par. [0004]) provides discussion that the instances of data are merely “sensor data,” which is encompasses very broad subject matter since sensors can detect things that can also be easily detected with the human eye, such as landmarks, other vehicles, environmental features, road signs, etc. In the same paragraph, Applicant discusses that the metrics can be the number of times a portion of a map is driven, which can be remembered and mentally evaluated within the human mind.
Independent claims 19 (as best understood) and 22 recite substantially the same abstract idea as recited in claim 11. Claim 19 introduces language to modify the data to be representative of a portion of an environment associated with a portion of the map, which is merely a characteristic of the data which can be mentally collected. Accordingly, the independent claims recite at least one abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. 101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong II
After determining that an abstract idea is present in the claim language, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Per MPEP 2106 III (Step 2A Prong II of flowchart), it must then be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that merely applying the abstract idea using the additional elements, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The following bolded portions represent the additional elements recited in claim 11.
Claim 11
“A system comprising:
one or more processors to:
store one or more instances of data representing a portion of an environment that is associated with a portion of a map;
determine, based at least on the one or more instances of data, at least a metric value associated with the portion of the map;
determine that the metric value satisfies a threshold; and
cause, based at least on the metric value satisfying the threshold and using the one or more instances of data, the portion of the map to be updated.”
In the present case, the above-outlined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, only apply the abstract idea using generic computer elements (system and processor(s)) - See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link to a particular technological environment or field of use (a vehicle - See MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Specifically, the additional elements of “a system” and “processor(s)” wherein the system comprises “one or more processors” is merely recited as generic computer elements to carry out the abstract idea identified above and fall under the “apply it” consideration. As claimed, they do not function in any particular manner in conjunction with the recited judicial exception. The broad recitation of generic computer components does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed additional elements merely indicate the technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
It has been held that by the Supreme Court that a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981).
Independent claims 19 and 22 do not introduce any previously unconsidered additional elements and as such inherit the evaluation of claim 11 that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, only apply the abstract idea using generic computer elements (one or more processors in claim 19 and no additional elements in claim 22).
The additional elements are recited at a high level and do not provide any details or particulars as to how the system and/or processor(s) perform any of the steps of the claims. The generic recitation a system having processors merely provides the contextual environment around which the abstract idea is claimed or merely applies the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. 101 Analysis – Step 2B
Lastly, reconsideration of the additional elements is provided under MPEP § 2106 III (Step 2B of flowchart). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claims 19 (as best understood) and 22 inherit their respective evaluations under considerations for integration into a practical application, and do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle to execute the abstract idea merely provides a general link to the technological environment. The claim recitations directed towards a system and processor(s) amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components, thus falling under the “apply it” consideration. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
35 U.S.C. 101 Analysis, Cont. – Representative Dependent Claims
Representative, dependent claims 12-18 and 21 do not recite further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or provide a general link to the technological environment.
Given broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the additional aspects of the judicial exception recited in the claims include –
Claim 12 (as best understood) –
the metric value comprises a number of instances associated with the one or more instances of data; the threshold comprises a threshold number of instances; and the determination that the metric value satisfies the threshold comprises determining that the number of instances is equal to or greater than the threshold number of instances (these are all performed in the human mind through mental observation/evaluation),
Claim 13 (as best understood) –
associate the one or more instances of data with the portion of the map; and based at least on the one or more instances of data being associated with the portion of the map, updating update a tracker associated with a metric value from a first value to a second value, wherein the determination of the metric value comprises determining that the metric value includes the second value (mental observation/determination and mental output/pen and paper output)
Claim 14 (as best understood) –
obtain location data associated with one or more machines that generated the one or more instances of data; and determine, based at least on the location data, that the one or more instances of data are associated with the portion of the map, wherein the determination of the metric value is further based at least on the one or more instances of data being associated with the portion of the map (mental observation/determination and mental output/pen and paper output).
Claim 15 (as best understood) –
An instance of data from the one or more instances of data comprises one or more of: sensor data representing a portion of an environment that corresponds to the portion of the map; or processed data representing one or more locations of one or more objects located within the portion of the environment (mental evaluation/observation using data to further claim characteristics of the previously evaluated abstract ideas)
Claim 16 (as best understood) –
Determine that a threshold period of time has elapsed since a previous update associated with the portion of the map, wherein the causation of the portion of the map to be updated is further based at least on the threshold period of time having elapsed (mental process of determining an update is to be made after a mentally observed/determined period of time)
Claim 17 (as best understood) –
Associate a plurality of instances of data with the portion of the map; based at least on the metric value satisfying the threshold, filter the plurality of instances of data using one or more criteria; and identify, based at least on the plurality of instances of data being filtered, the one or more instances of data from the plurality of instances of data (further mental evaluation, determinations, and mental outputs).
Claim 21 (as best understood) –
Provide data representing at least the portion of the map as updated for navigating within at least the portion of the environment (mental observation and mental output/ providing a pen and paper result of a mental process).
– constitute further recitations of the same abstract idea evaluated above as representative claim 11. Specifically, given broadest reasonable determination based on Applicant’s specification/the breadth of the claims, the recited limitations can be performed in the human mind or be performed with pen and paper as a result of a mental process. As a result, each of these claims merely further elaborates upon the abstract idea identified in representative claim 11 above.
In addition, the additional elements recited in the claims include –
Claim 13 (as best understood) –
One or more processing units – (The processing units are ambiguous as to whether they refer to the previously treated one or more processors; however, the newly claimed processing units similarly implement the abstract idea of the claim. The processing units are recited at a high level of generality and is considered under “apply it” as merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing componentry.)
Claim 14 (as best understood) –
One or more processing units – (The processing units are ambiguous as to whether they refer to the previously treated one or more processors; however, the newly claimed processing units similarly implement the abstract idea of the claim. The processing units are recited at a high level of generality and is considered under “apply it” as merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing componentry.)
One or more machines – (recited at a high level of generality and provides a general link to the technical environment of the source of the data without adding significantly more.)
Claim 16 (as best understood) –
One or more processing units – (The processing units are ambiguous as to whether they refer to the previously treated one or more processors; however, the newly claimed processing units similarly implement the abstract idea of the claim. The processing units are recited at a high level of generality and is considered under “apply it” as merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing componentry.)
Claim 17 (as best understood) –
One or more processing units – (The processing units are ambiguous as to whether they refer to the previously treated one or more processors; however, the newly claimed processing units similarly implement the abstract idea of the claim. The processing units are recited at a high level of generality and is considered under “apply it” as merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing componentry.)
Claim 18 (as best understood) –
The system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine ;a system for performing one or more simulation operations ;a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations ;a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data ;a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources – (recited at a high level of generality and provides a general link to the technical environment of the source of the data without adding significantly more and can also fall under “apply it” as the generically claimed computerized systems that apply the abstract idea)
Claim 19 (as best understood) –
One or more processors comprising processing circuitry – (The processing units are ambiguous as to whether they refer to the previously treated one or more processors; however, the newly claimed processing units similarly implement the abstract idea of the claim. The processing units are recited at a high level of generality and is considered under “apply it” as merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing componentry.)
Claim 21 (as best understood) –
One or more processors providing one or machines – (recited at a high level of generality and provides a general link to the technical environment of the source of the data without adding significantly more and can also fall under “apply it” as the generically claimed computerized systems that apply the abstract idea.)
– constitute previously untreated additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since, in alignment with the analysis of claim 11 above, these additional elements merely use generic computer technology to apply the abstract idea or merely provide a generic linking of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In this case, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality by broadly reciting types of systems and broad machines and processing componentry. The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the additional elements into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When evaluated again under Step 2B of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis, the additional elements merely constitute generic computer elements that apply the judicial exception or provide a generic linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, claims 11-30 are directed towards an abstract idea without reciting significantly more.
35 U.S.C. 101 Analysis – Remaining claims
Claims 20 and 23-30 recite substantially the same subject matter as recites in claims 11-19, 21, and 22, and, as such, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being drawn towards an abstract idea without significantly more for the same reasons provided in the discussion of claims 11-19, 21, and 22 above.
In view of the foregoing, claims 11-30 are considered to cover ineligible patent subject matter by reciting an abstract idea without significantly more. All dependent claims have been analyzed and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2018/0188037 to Wheeler et al.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Liu discloses a system comprising: one or more processors (At least the disclosed processor having a GPU, RFICs, ASICs, and memory in Par. [0169] and the HD map system) to: store one or more instances of data (At least at Par. [0082; 0096-0109]; vehicle sensors receive sensor data, create and store verification records, and transmit records to online HD map system – see flowchart in Fig. 9 directed to updating a landmark map) representing a portion of an environment that is associated with a portion of a map (At least at Par. [0082; 0096-0109]; at least steps 904/906/908 of Fig. 9; processing sensor data to determine current location and a set of objects/landmarks, querying map data to find objects within the surrounding region of the vehicle’s location, and comparing data associated with the objects detected by the vehicle with objects on the maps to determine discrepancies between the vehicle’s environmental perception and the environment stored in the maps to create landmark map verification records); determine, based at least on the one or more instances of data, at least a metric value associated with the portion of the map (At least at Par. [0096-0109]; leveraging vehicle sensor data to create and report a number of created landmark map verification records to the HD map system at a predetermined time interval and to create confidence values); determine that the metric value satisfies a threshold (At least at Par. [0096-0109]; where match/mismatch records are created at a threshold confidence value compared to predetermined thresholds and where creating landmark map verification records occurs at a predetermined time interval and/or can be confirmed); and cause, based at least on the metric value satisfying the threshold and using the one or more instances of data, the portion of the map to be updated (At least at Par. [0096-0109]; where the online HD map is updated after receiving and analyzing the verification records and associated data).
Wheeler does not the claim language verbatim regarding the metric value determination basis being associated with the portion of the map;” however, a PHOSITA would have readily recognized that Wheeler meets this limitation by virtue of disclosed sensor information being fed to the confidence value assignment process through object detection at particular geographic locations. As such, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that Wheeler necessarily meets the claimed limitation since updating the HD map depends on object detection accuracy and location accuracy.
Regarding claim 12, the primary reference, Wheeler, discloses that: the metric value comprises a number of instances associated with the one or more instances of data (At least at Par. [0096-0109]; where the vehicle reports verification records every predetermined time interval and corresponding the verification records/sensor data to adjust confidence values); the threshold comprises a threshold number of instances (At least at Par. [0096-0109]; where the time intervals can be adjust and where the confidence thresholds can be adjusted); and the determination that the metric value satisfies the threshold comprises determining that the number of instances is equal to or greater than the threshold number of instances (At least at Par. [0096-0109]; threshold of verification based on time and/or number of verification records and number of verifications required to achieve confidence adjustment).
Regarding claim 13, the primary reference, Wheeler, discloses that the one or more processing units are further to: associate the one or more instances of data with the portion of the map (At least at Par. [0096-0109]; through sensor data and verification record processing and transmitting); and based at least on the one or more instances of data being associated with the portion of the map, update a tracker associated with a metric value from a first value to a second value (At least at Par. [0096-0109]; where the HD map system is updated and confidence values and/or the predetermined time intervals for reporting are adjusted), wherein the determination of the metric value comprises determining that the metric value includes the second value (At least at Par. [0096-0109]; by virtue of time interval/confidence value adjustment).
Regarding claim 14, the primary reference, Wheeler, discloses that the one or more processing units are further to: obtain location data associated with one or more machines that generated the one or more instances of data (At least at Par. [0082; 0096-0109]; where the sensor data is GPS data from the vehicle); and determine, based at least on the location data, that the one or more instances of data are associated with the portion of the map (At least at Par. [0082-0109]; where GPS data provides location data and the sensor data detects a set of objects associated with a map location), wherein the determination of the metric value is further based at least on the one or more instances of data being associated with the portion of the map (At least at Par. [0082-0109]; process of leveraging vehicle sensor/GPS data to create verification records based on object detection at particular map locations).
Regarding claim 15, the primary reference, Wheeler, discloses that an instance of data from the one or more instances of data comprises one or more of: sensor data representing a portion of an environment that corresponds to the portion of the map (At least at Par. [0082-0109]; where the sensor data from the vehicle includes the detected objects at a particular geographic location); or processed data representing one or more locations of one or more objects located within the portion of the environment.
Regarding claim 16, the primary reference, Wheeler, discloses that the one or more processing units are further to: determine that a threshold period of time has elapsed since a previous update associated with the portion of the map (At least at Par. [0096-0109]; at least the discussion regarding the predetermined time intervals of record verification which drives map updating), wherein the causation of the portion of the map to be updated is further based at least on the threshold period of time having elapsed (At least at Par. [0101]; where verification records are collected over a predetermined time interval and then processes the verification records to update the HD map).
Though Wheeler does not expressly recite the claim language verbatim, a PHOSITA would have readily recognized that Wheeler’s predetermined time intervals associated with the verification record creation and subsequent map updating based on the verification records would necessarily allow for map updating to occur based on the threshold period of time elapsing between verification predetermined record creation time intervals. This would result in the obvious benefit of maintaining up-to-date maps for improved landmark accuracy/consistency.
Regarding claim 17, the primary reference, Wheeler, discloses that the one or more processing units are further to: associate a plurality of instances of data with the portion of the map (At least at Par. [0082-0109; 0123-0126]; where GPS data provides location data and the sensor data detects a set of objects associated with a map location, LIDAR provides images, and only data from the sensors that is associated with a discrepancy is transmitted while images that are substantially the same are filtered out); based at least on the metric value satisfying the threshold, filter the plurality of instances of data using one or more criteria (At least at Par. [0082-0109; 0123-0126]; at least by virtue of records being created at predetermined time intervals and images that meet a sameness criterion being filtered out to save bandwidth resources); and identify, based at least on the plurality of instances of data being filtered, the one or more instances of data from the plurality of instances of data (At least at Par. [0082-0109; 0123-0126]; at least filtering between data that is sent immediately and later/never).
Regarding claim 18, the primary reference, Wheeler, discloses that the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (225); a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (210); a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (At least elements 210 and 225).
Regarding claim 19, Wheeler discloses one or more processors comprising processing circuitry (At least the disclosed processor having a GPU, RFICs, ASICs, and memory in Par. [0169] and the HD map system) to cause a portion of map to be updated using one or more instances of data representing a portion of an environment that is associated with the portion of the map (At least at Par. [0082; 0096-0109]; at least where the HD map is updated through the verification record creation/transmittal process which leverages environmental data collected at the vehicle and compared to the HD map records based on landmark features at particular locations), wherein the portion of the map is caused to be updated based at least on a number of instances associated with the one or more instances of data satisfying a threshold number of instances (At least at Par. [0096-0109]; where verification records are collected over a predetermined time interval and then processes the verification records to update the HD map).
Though Wheeler does not expressly recite the claim language verbatim, a PHOSITA would have readily recognized that Wheeler’s predetermined time intervals associated with the verification record creation and subsequent map updating based on the verification records would necessarily allow for map updating to occur based on the threshold period of time elapsing between verification predetermined record creation time intervals. This would result in the obvious benefit of maintaining up-to-date maps for improved landmark accuracy/consistency.
Regarding claim 20, the primary reference, Wheeler, discloses that the one or more processors is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (At least elements 210 and 225).
Regarding claim 21, the primary reference, Wheeler, discloses that the one or more processors are further to provide data representing at least the portion of the map as updated to one or more machines (At least at Par. [0029; 0032; 0035-0037]; by virtue of the HD maps being continuously updated on a regular basis and providing the current location of the autonomous vehicle relative to lanes of the road precisely enough for the vehicle to drive safely and where the vehicle computing system requests HD map data for driving along a route) for navigating within at least the portion of the environment.
Claims 22-30 are rejected as reciting substantially the same limitations as those found in claims 11-18 and 21, which have been rejected above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669