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 .
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant's amendment of 10 October 2025. Claims 1-5 and 11-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 11-20 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 11 July 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-5 and 11-20 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 11 July 2025 has been withdrawn. Examiner notes that most rejection were removed, however, the rejection for the amended term “the last trajectory point” is maintained as examiner believes it should be adjusted to --a last trajectory point—as it’s the first mention of this term.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-5 and 11-20 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 11 July 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Claims 1-5 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In response, claims 1, 11 and 12 are amended.
Specially, claims 1, 11 and 12 are amended based on the lines 4-6 on page 9 of the PCT and the passage from line 17 on page 4 of the PCT to the first paragraph on page 5 of the PCT publication. Accordingly, amended claim 1 now recites:
A vehicle trajectory deviation correction method, performed by a vehicle trajectory deviation correction apparatus resided in an electronic device, comprising: obtaining a first road trajectory, wherein the first road trajectory
comprises a plurality of first trajectory points and the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads; obtaining trajectory display information of the first road trajectory with respect to an electronic map, wherein the trajectory display information comprises information of road positions on the electronic map that match the
plurality of first trajectory points; splitting the first road trajectory into N trajectory segments based on a
road structure of the first road trajectory, each trajectory segment comprising M consecutive first trajectory points, and the each trajectory segment having a single path direction, wherein the single path direction is the path direction from the first trajectory point of the M first trajectory points to the last trajectory point of the M first trajectory points in the each trajectory segment, wherein N is a positive integer and M is an integer greater than 1; consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information.
The following is the analysis of amended claim 1 which is complied with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Step 1: Amended claim 1 relates to a method, which is a statutory category of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A: Amended claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea.
In amended claim 1, it is specified that the execution subject of the method is a vehicle trajectory deviation correction apparatus resided in an electronic device. Therefore, the steps in amended claim 1 are all performed by this vehicle trajectory deviation correction apparatus resided in an electronic device. Amended claim 1 does not involve a process where an operator collects (receives, detects, etc.) data solely through visual observation and makes simple judgments (determines, analyzes, compares, etc.) merely through mental processes or with pen and paper assistance.
Step 2B: Amended claim 1 includes significantly more than the judicial exception.
Amended claim 1 addresses the technical problems of: in various scenarios such as map navigation, location determination, and distance measurement, the existing trajectory correction methods being highly constrained by specific scenarios and having limited applicability, and the deviation between the actual road and the trajectory displayed on the electronic map.
In amended claim 1, the first road trajectory is structured and split into N trajectory segments, subsequently real-time vehicle trajectory deviation correction can be performed directly based on the N trajectory segments, making the applicable scene of the method unconstrained. By consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, that is, by consolidating the two relatively stable elements, namely, the road and the electronic map, the problem of the deviation between the actual road and the trajectory displayed on the electronic map can be solved, and the matching between the vehicle's travelling trajectory and the actual road network can be improved.
Specifically:
The problem of the existing trajectory correction methods being highly constrained by specific scenarios and having limited applicability is solved by the following steps with the vehicle trajectory deviation correction apparatus:
obtaining a first road trajectory, wherein the first road trajectory comprises a plurality of first trajectory points and the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads;
obtaining trajectory display information of the first road trajectory with respect to an electronic map, wherein the trajectory display information comprises information of road positions on the electronic map that match the plurality of first trajectory points;
splitting the first road trajectory into N trajectory segments based on a road structure of the first road trajectory, each trajectory segment comprising M consecutive first trajectory points, and the each trajectory segment having a single path direction, wherein the single path direction is the path direction from the first trajectory point of the M first trajectory points to the last trajectory point of the M first trajectory points in the each trajectory segment, wherein N is a positive integer and M is an integer greater than 1;
correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information.
In the above technical features, the first road trajectory is structured and split into N trajectory segments, subsequently real-time vehicle trajectory deviation correction can be performed directly based on the N trajectory segments, making the applicable scene of the method unconstrained.
The problem of the deviation between the actual road and the trajectory displayed on the electronic map is solved by the following steps with the vehicle trajectory deviation correction apparatus:
consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information. By consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, that is, by consolidating the two relatively stable elements, namely, the road and the electronic map, the problem of the deviation between the actual road and the trajectory displayed on the electronic map can be solved, and the matching between the vehicle's travelling trajectory and the actual road network can be improved.
In amended claim 1, the first road trajectory is structured and split into N trajectory segments, subsequently real-time vehicle trajectory deviation correction can be performed directly based on the N trajectory segments, making the applicable scene of the method unconstrained. By consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, that is, by consolidating the two relatively stable elements, namely, the road and the electronic map, the problem of the deviation between the actual road and the trajectory displayed on the electronic map can be solved, and the matching between the vehicle's travelling trajectory and the actual road network can be improved. That is, the amended claim 1, as a whole, solves the specific technical problems mentioned above and embodies an inventive concept.
Therefore, amended claim 1 complies with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For similar reasons as amended claim 1, Applicant submits that amended claims 11 and 12 also comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Examiners Response:
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding the claimed invention, the claims as of right now merely have steps which acquire information from vehicles collecting information and map information for use in mental processing steps that split, consolidate and correct a vehicle trajectory deviation using the acquired vehicle trajectories and map information. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Furthermore, the addition of an electronic device (processor) that performs the recited mental steps cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.…In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Finally, the argued improvement of the matching between the vehicle's travelling trajectory and the actual road network being improved from the claimed invention, this improvement is never claimed in the current claims. In addition, Improving the abstract idea is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a *new* abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original)….even if the steps are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, the improvement is to the abstract idea rather than to computers or technology. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”). As such, even in combination, these additional elements, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-5 and 11-20 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 11 July 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-5 and 11-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the last trajectory point of the M first trajectory points" in Line 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the last trajectory point of the M first trajectory points " in Line 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the last trajectory point of the M first trajectory points " in Line 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All dependent claims are rejected for depending on rejected independent claims.
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 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 11 is directed to a device and claim 12 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 12 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle trajectory deviation correction method, performed by a vehicle trajectory deviation correction apparatus resided in an electronic device, comprising:
obtaining a first road trajectory, wherein the first road trajectory comprises a plurality of first trajectory points and the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads;
obtaining trajectory display information of the first road trajectory with respect to an electronic map, wherein the trajectory display information comprises information of road positions on the electronic map that match the plurality of first trajectory points;
splitting the first road trajectory into N trajectory segments based on a road structure of the first road trajectory, each trajectory segment comprising M consecutive first trajectory points, and the each trajectory segment having a single path direction, wherein the single path direction is the path direction from the first trajectory point of the M first trajectory points to the last trajectory point of the M first trajectory points in the each trajectory segment, wherein N is a positive integer and M is an integer greater than 1;
consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map,
correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “splitting …”, “consolidating…” and “correcting…” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must 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 additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle trajectory deviation correction method, performed by a vehicle trajectory deviation correction apparatus resided in an electronic device, comprising:
obtaining a first road trajectory, wherein the first road trajectory comprises a plurality of first trajectory points and the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads;
obtaining trajectory display information of the first road trajectory with respect to an electronic map, wherein the trajectory display information comprises information of road positions on the electronic map that match the plurality of first trajectory points;
splitting the first road trajectory into N trajectory segments based on a road structure of the first road trajectory, each trajectory segment comprising M consecutive first trajectory points, and the each trajectory segment having a single path direction, wherein the single path direction is the path direction from the first trajectory point of the M first trajectory points to the last trajectory point of the M first trajectory points in the each trajectory segment, wherein N is a positive integer and M is an integer greater than 1;
consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map,
correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining steps from/using sensor system(s)/memory are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of obtaining information for use in the splitting and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 11 and 12 further recite “performed by a vehicle trajectory deviation correction apparatus resided in an electronic device”, “An electronic device, comprising: a processor, a memory, and a computer program stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the computer program is configured to be executed by the processor” and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing therein a computer program, wherein the computer program is configured to be executed by a processor to implement” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose map matching environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
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, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, 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 limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of obtaining information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors or the data can come from a memory storage, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 13-20 do not recite any 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 additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims merely have additional steps such as “obtaining”, “correcting”, “deleting”,” adding”, “determining” and “displaying”. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 and 13-20 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-5 and 11-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao ‘971 (US 20210095971 A1) in view of Mao ‘819 (US 20190360819 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mao ‘971 teaches A vehicle trajectory deviation correction method, performed by a vehicle trajectory deviation correction apparatus resided in an electronic device, comprising (see at least [Abstract & ¶04-05]):
obtaining a first road trajectory, wherein the first road trajectory comprises a plurality of first trajectory points (Obtaining a first road trajectory from a probe, where the first road trajectory is made up of a plurality of points. see at least [¶04 & 066]);
obtaining trajectory display information of the first road trajectory with respect to an electronic map, wherein the trajectory display information comprises information of road positions on the electronic map that match the plurality of first trajectory points (Obtaining road trajectory information of the first road trajectory with respect to an electronic map, wherein the road trajectory information comprises information of road positions on the electronic map that can be matched to the plurality of first trajectory points. see at least [¶046 & 057]);
splitting the first road trajectory into N trajectory segments based on a road structure of the first road trajectory, each trajectory segment comprising M consecutive first trajectory points, and the each trajectory segment having a single path direction, wherein the single path direction is the path direction from the first trajectory point of the M first trajectory points to the last trajectory point of the M first trajectory points in the each trajectory segment, wherein N is a positive integer and M is an integer greater than 1 (The first road trajectory from the probe can be split into segments based on the road structure (presence of turning points). The segments are composed of consecutive first road trajectory points from a probe. The segments also have one single direction the probe was heading from a first point in the segment to the last. see at least [¶068-078 & Fig 2A-2C]);
Mao ‘971 does not explicitly teach and the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads; consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information.
Shall be noted that Mao ‘971 teaches that the probe trajectory in a known rode is composed of points based on speed. (see at least [“[¶067] More specifically, FIG. 2A illustrates a probe trajectory 201 that includes high-speed probe points 203a-203d (e.g., probes with a speed of 10 km/h or higher indicated by white arrows in the respective heading direction) and low speed probe points 205a-205c (e.g., probes with a speed below 10 km/h indicated by black arrows in the respective heading direction).….”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of XXXX.
Mao ‘819 does teach assigning and the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads (The first/probe road trajectory is obtained from pre-collected road trajectory of a vehicle/probe in a known vehicle road operating area. see at least [¶048-049, 051 and FIG 3]);
consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information (Consolidating/matching the first/probe trajectory with an electronic map and based on the matching, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the map based on the trajectory segments from a probe and the road trajectory information from the map. see at least [¶051, 059-060, 064-066 & 069]).
Mao ‘819 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of map matching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mao ‘971 to use the technique of having the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads; consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information as taught by Mao ‘819. Doing so would lead to improving the map matching to a respective road segment (see at least [¶060]).
Regarding Claim 11, Mao ‘971 teaches An electronic device, comprising: a processor, a memory, and a computer program stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the computer program is configured to be executed by the processor to implement following steps (see at least [Abstract & ¶05]):
obtaining a first road trajectory, wherein the first road trajectory comprises a plurality of first trajectory points (Obtaining a first road trajectory from a probe, where the first road trajectory is made up of a plurality of points. see at least [¶04 & 066]);
obtaining trajectory display information of the first road trajectory with respect to an electronic map, wherein the trajectory display information comprises information of road positions on the electronic map that match the plurality of first trajectory points (Obtaining road trajectory information of the first road trajectory with respect to an electronic map, wherein the road trajectory information comprises information of road positions on the electronic map that can be matched to the plurality of first trajectory points. see at least [¶046 & 057]);
splitting the first road trajectory into N trajectory segments based on a road structure of the first road trajectory, each trajectory segment comprising M consecutive first trajectory points, and the each trajectory segment having a single path direction, wherein the single path direction is the path direction from the first trajectory point of the M first trajectory points to the last trajectory point of the M first trajectory points in the each trajectory segment, wherein N is a positive integer and M is an integer greater than 1 (The first road trajectory from the probe can be split into segments based on the road structure (presence of turning points). The segments are composed of consecutive first road trajectory points from a probe. The segments also have one single direction the probe was heading from a first point in the segment to the last. see at least [¶068-078 & Fig 2A-2C]);
Mao ‘971 does not explicitly teach and the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads; consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information.
Shall be noted that Mao ‘971 teaches that the probe trajectory in a known rode is composed of points based on speed. (see at least [“[¶067] More specifically, FIG. 2A illustrates a probe trajectory 201 that includes high-speed probe points 203a-203d (e.g., probes with a speed of 10 km/h or higher indicated by white arrows in the respective heading direction) and low speed probe points 205a-205c (e.g., probes with a speed below 10 km/h indicated by black arrows in the respective heading direction).….”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of XXXX.
Mao ‘819 does teach assigning and the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads (The first/probe road trajectory is obtained from pre-collected road trajectory of a vehicle/probe in a known vehicle road operating area. see at least [¶048-049, 051 and FIG 3]);
consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information (Consolidating/matching the first/probe trajectory with an electronic map and based on the matching, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the map based on the trajectory segments from a probe and the road trajectory information from the map. see at least [¶051, 059-060, 064-066 & 069]).
Mao ‘819 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of map matching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mao ‘971 to use the technique of having the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads; consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information as taught by Mao ‘819. Doing so would lead to improving the map matching to a respective road segment (see at least [¶060]).
Regarding Claim 12, Mao ‘971 teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing therein a computer program, wherein the computer program is configured to be executed by a processor to implement following steps (see at least [Abstract & ¶06]):
obtaining a first road trajectory, wherein the first road trajectory comprises a plurality of first trajectory points (Obtaining a first road trajectory from a probe, where the first road trajectory is made up of a plurality of points. see at least [¶04 & 066]);
obtaining trajectory display information of the first road trajectory with respect to an electronic map, wherein the trajectory display information comprises information of road positions on the electronic map that match the plurality of first trajectory points (Obtaining road trajectory information of the first road trajectory with respect to an electronic map, wherein the road trajectory information comprises information of road positions on the electronic map that can be matched to the plurality of first trajectory points. see at least [¶046 & 057]);
splitting the first road trajectory into N trajectory segments based on a road structure of the first road trajectory, each trajectory segment comprising M consecutive first trajectory points, and the each trajectory segment having a single path direction, wherein the single path direction is the path direction from the first trajectory point of the M first trajectory points to the last trajectory point of the M first trajectory points in the each trajectory segment, wherein N is a positive integer and M is an integer greater than 1 (The first road trajectory from the probe can be split into segments based on the road structure (presence of turning points). The segments are composed of consecutive first road trajectory points from a probe. The segments also have one single direction the probe was heading from a first point in the segment to the last. see at least [¶068-078 & Fig 2A-2C]);
Mao ‘971 does not explicitly teach and the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads; consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information.
Shall be noted that Mao ‘971 teaches that the probe trajectory in a known rode is composed of points based on speed. (see at least [“[¶067] More specifically, FIG. 2A illustrates a probe trajectory 201 that includes high-speed probe points 203a-203d (e.g., probes with a speed of 10 km/h or higher indicated by white arrows in the respective heading direction) and low speed probe points 205a-205c (e.g., probes with a speed below 10 km/h indicated by black arrows in the respective heading direction).….”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of XXXX.
Mao ‘819 does teach assigning and the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads (The first/probe road trajectory is obtained from pre-collected road trajectory of a vehicle/probe in a known vehicle road operating area. see at least [¶048-049, 051 and FIG 3]);
consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information (Consolidating/matching the first/probe trajectory with an electronic map and based on the matching, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the map based on the trajectory segments from a probe and the road trajectory information from the map. see at least [¶051, 059-060, 064-066 & 069]).
Mao ‘819 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of map matching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mao ‘971 to use the technique of having the first road trajectory is obtained by pre-collecting a road trajectory of a vehicle based on known vehicle operation roads; consolidating the first road trajectory and the electronic map, and based on the consolidated result of the first road trajectory and the electronic map, correcting a vehicle trajectory deviation on the electronic map based on the N trajectory segments and the trajectory display information as taught by Mao ‘819. Doing so would lead to improving the map matching to a respective road segment (see at least [¶060]).
Claims 2-3, 13-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao ‘971 (US 20210095971 A1) in view of Mao ‘819 (US 20190360819 A1) in view of Ogawa JP2001124567A (English Translation) in further view of Berry (US 20200158515 A1).
Regarding Claims 2, 13 and 17, Mao ‘971 and Mao ‘819 teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11-12 as shown above, Mao ‘971 and Mao ‘819 do not explicitly teach obtaining a second road trajectory, wherein the second road trajectory comprises a plurality of second trajectory points; correcting the plurality of second trajectory points based on a distance between two adjacent second trajectory points among the plurality of second trajectory points, to obtain the first road trajectory, wherein a distance between adjacent first trajectory points in the first road trajectory is greater than a first preset threshold and less than a second preset threshold.
However, Ogawa does teach obtaining a second road trajectory, wherein the second road trajectory comprises a plurality of second trajectory points (Obtaining a second road trajectory of the vehicle, with the second trajectory being made up of a plurality of points. see at least [¶023 & 094-095]);
correcting the plurality of second trajectory points based on a distance between two adjacent second trajectory points among the plurality of second trajectory points, to obtain the first road trajectory (Correcting the plurality of second trajectory points of a vehicle to obtain a first road trajectory of a vehicle based on a determined distance between adjacent points of the second trajectory. see at least [¶094-095, 097 & 0101-0105]).
Ogawa would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of correcting a map database. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mao ‘971 and Mao ‘819 to use the technique of obtaining a second road trajectory, wherein the second road trajectory comprises a plurality of second trajectory points; correcting the plurality of second trajectory points based on a distance between two adjacent second trajectory points among the plurality of second trajectory points, to obtain the first road trajectory as taught by Ogawa. Doing so would lead to improved accuracy of the corrected map stored in a database (see at least [¶0105]).
Furthermore, Berry teaches wherein a distance between adjacent first trajectory points in the first road trajectory is greater than a first preset threshold and less than a second preset threshold (In order to obtain a first road trajectory from a probe, the distance for points must be within a range of thresholds to classify the points as part of the probe trajectory. see at least [¶028-030, 038 & 042]).
Berry would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of categorizing points on probe data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mao ‘971, Mao ‘819 and Ogawa to use the technique of having a distance between adjacent first trajectory points in the first road trajectory is greater than a first preset threshold and less than a second preset threshold as taught by Berry. Doing so would lead to improved map matching of probe data to map (see at least [¶037-038]).
Regarding Claims 3, 14 and 18, Mao ‘971, Mao ‘819, Ogawa and Berry teach all of the limitations of claims 2, 13 and 17 as shown above, furthermore, Mao ‘971 teaches correcting, according to a preset rule, the plurality of second trajectory points based on the distance between two adjacent second trajectory points among the plurality of second trajectory points, to obtain the first road trajectory; wherein the preset rule comprises at least one of the following: deleting either one of the two adjacent second trajectory points in case that the distance between the two adjacent second trajectory points is less than or equal to the first preset threshold; adding a point between the two adjacent second trajectory points in case that the distance between the two adjacent second trajectory points is greater than or equal to the second preset threshold; adding a point between the two adjacent second trajectory points in case that the two adjacent second trajectory points fail to form a closed route corresponding to a road in a target road network (Correcting the plurality of second trajectory points of a vehicle involves adding a point between two adjacent second trajectory points when the distance is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value. see at least [¶094-095, 097 & 0101-0105]).
Ogawa would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of correcting a map database. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mao ‘971, Mao ‘819 and Berry to use the technique of correcting, according to a preset rule, the plurality of second trajectory points based on the distance between two adjacent second trajectory points among the plurality of second trajectory points, to obtain the first road trajectory; wherein the preset rule comprises at least one of the following: adding a point between the two adjacent second trajectory points in case that the distance between the two adjacent second trajectory points is greater than or equal to the second preset threshold as taught by Ogawa. Doing so would lead to improved accuracy of the corrected map stored in a database (see at least [¶0105]).
Claims 4, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao ‘971 (US 20210095971 A1) in view of Mao ‘819 (US 20190360819 A1) in view of Dorum (US 20200141738 A1).
Regarding Claims 4, 15 and 19, Mao ‘971 and Mao ‘819 teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11-12 as shown above, Mao ‘971 and Mao ‘819 do not explicitly teach obtaining information of a position of a vehicle; determining a target trajectory segment from the N trajectory segments, wherein the target trajectory segment is a trajectory segment among the N trajectory segments with a shortest projection distance to the position; determining a target trajectory point in the target trajectory segment that corresponds to the position; obtaining first display information corresponding to the target trajectory point from the trajectory display information; displaying the target trajectory point on the electronic map based on the first display information.
However, Dorum does teach obtaining information of a position of a vehicle (Obtaining position information from a vehicle/probe. see at least [¶044]);
determining a target trajectory segment from the N trajectory segments, wherein the target trajectory segment is a trajectory segment among the N trajectory segments with a shortest projection distance to the position (Determining a target trajectory/road segment from a plurality of road segments. With the target trajectory/road segment is the one with the shortest projection distance from a vehicle position. see at least [¶070-073 & 077]);
determining a target trajectory point in the target trajectory segment that corresponds to the position (Determining a target trajectory/road segment that corresponds to a vehicle position. see at least [¶070-073 & 077]);
obtaining first display information corresponding to the target trajectory point from the trajectory display information (Obtaining display information corresponding to a target trajectory/road point from the trajectory display information. see at least [¶03, 052-054, 058 & 075-078]);
displaying the target trajectory point on the electronic map based on the first display information (Displaying the target trajectory/road point on a map to show the current location of the vehicle after map matching. see at least [¶03, 052-054, 058 & 075-078]).
Dorum would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of associating probe points to road segments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mao ‘971 and Mao ‘819 to use the technique of obtaining information of a position of a vehicle; determining a target trajectory segment from the N trajectory segments, wherein the target trajectory segment is a trajectory segment among the N trajectory segments with a shortest projection distance to the position; determining a target trajectory point in the target trajectory segment that corresponds to the position; obtaining first display information corresponding to the target trajectory point from the trajectory display information; displaying the target trajectory point on the electronic map based on the first display information as taught by Dorum. Doing so would lead to efficiently projecting probe points to a road segment (see at least [¶077]).
Claims 5, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao ‘971 (US 20210095971 A1) in view of Mao ‘819 (US 20190360819 A1) in view of Dorum (US 20200141738 A1) in further view of Nakano (US 20110208422 A1).
Regarding Claims 5, 15 and 20, Mao ‘971, Mao ‘819 and Dorum teach all of the limitations of claims 4, 15 and 19 as shown above, Mao ‘971, Mao ‘819 and Dorum do not explicitly teach obtaining a display point set of the N trajectory segments, wherein the display point set comprises K first trajectory points of each of the N trajectory segments, and the K first trajectory points of each of the N trajectory segments are used for display, wherein K is a positive integer less than or equal to M; obtaining second display information of each first trajectory point in the display point set from the trajectory display information; displaying the each first trajectory point in the display point set on the electronic map based on the second display information.
However, Nakano does teach obtaining a display point set of the N trajectory segments, wherein the display point set comprises K first trajectory points of each of the N trajectory segments, and the K first trajectory points of each of the N trajectory segments are used for display, wherein K is a positive integer less than or equal to M (Obtaining display points for a set of trajectory segments, where the display point contains a first point of each segment, and the points are used for display in the map. see at least [¶041-050]);
obtaining second display information of each first trajectory point in the display point set from the trajectory display information (Obtaining display information of each first trajectory point. see at least [¶041-050]);
displaying the each first trajectory point in the display point set on the electronic map based on the second display information (Displaying each first trajectory point on an electronic map. see at least [¶041-050]).
Nakano would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of trajectory display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mao ‘971, Mao ‘819 and Dorum to use the technique of obtaining a display point set of the N trajectory segments, wherein the display point set comprises K first trajectory points of each of the N trajectory segments, and the K first trajectory points of each of the N trajectory segments are used for display, wherein K is a positive integer less than or equal to M; obtaining second display information of each first trajectory point in the display point set from the trajectory display information; displaying the each first trajectory point in the display point set on the electronic map based on the second display information as taught by Nakano. Doing so would lead to improved visibility of the trajectory on the displayed figure (see at least [¶074]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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 on (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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667