DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
This Office Action is made FINAL. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments, Examiner withdraws the previous objections to the specification; maintains the previous § 112(f) interpretation of “image capture device”; maintains the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-13; withdraws the previous § 101 rejection of claim 14; adds the below § 101 rejection of claim 14; and maintains the previous § 102 and § 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under § 101
Regarding Step 2A, Pring 1, Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea because “they require a specific mathematical and structural synthesis of a hardware entity (i.e., a processor), physical GPS data, time-series vehicle trajectories, and digital road features across multiple, repeated passes over a same physical road.” Remarks at p. 11. In other words, claim 1 is performed using a computer and stored data. As set forth below, use of a generic computer and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more.
Applicant further argues that “[a] human mind cannot calculate section node reliabilities across automated historical driving passes, nor can it map real-time section network connection relationships to generate an active lane network geometry.” Remarks at p. 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention only requires gathering certain data and making certain determinations based on that data, which can all be done in the human mind. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the method be performed in “real-time” or that “automated historical driving passes” be used in generating the centerline network. These terms, or any words that could be interpreted as having the same meaning as these terms, do not appear in the current claim set.
As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues that claim 1 is “integrated into a practical application that provides a distinct technological improvement.” Remarks at p. 11 (emphasis in original). Applicant further states that the “claimed invention improves the operation of vehicle navigation and localized map-generation technology by providing a lightweight method to build highly accurate, real-time lane-level network geometries using existing trajectory patterns and sparse road features.” Remarks at p. 12.
Applicant is reminded that “the ‘improvements’ analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. It should be noted that while this consideration is often referred to in an abbreviated manner as the ‘improvements consideration,’ the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
The technology as issue in claim 1 is not simply vehicle navigation or map generation. The technology is computer-based vehicle map generation, which requires an improvement to the computing system capabilities and/or functionality. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, ¶ [0012] of the present specification describes the invention as increasing the processing speed as compared to LiDAR or image-based lane centerline detection methods, and the Federal Circuit has held that an increase of speed in processing data using general-purpose computers, as is the case here, is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Applicant has not alleged an improvement to the computer system used to generate the centerline network, nor does the specification provide an improvement sufficient to improve the computer functionality.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments use the terms “real-time” and “dynamically” to support their position. Examiner, again, notes that there is nothing in the present claim set that requires the process to be performed in real-time or dynamically. The method could be performed using stored historical data and a computer.
As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and claim 1 does not provide a meaningful limitation that improves a technology or technical field.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues that the “claims recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.” Remarks at p. 12 (emphasis in original). Applicant further states that the “ordered combination of elements in claim 1 provides a non-conventional approach to generating digital navigation maps,” and that the “combination replaces conventional, heavy sensor-mapping arrays with a reliable, trajectory-driven networking model.” Id. Examiner need not conclude whether the claim provides a non-conventional approach or replaces convention arrays as this stage, as those inquiries are related to whether the claims are novel and non-obvious.
Applicant is reminded that “Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).” MPEP § 2106.05(B)(II).
As set forth below, the additional limitation are “obtaining a driving trajectory…” and “image captured by an image capturing device,” which are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities and amount to mere data gathering. Furthermore, data gathering is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As such, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and claim 1 does not recite significantly more.
In conclusion, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, and 14 are unpersuasive for all the reasons set forth above. Applicant has not provided any independent arguments for dependent claims 2-12.
Rejection under § 102 and § 103
Applicant argues that Takegawa discloses a static database lookup, not dynamic node generation based on trajectory reliability. Remarks at p. 14. Applicant supports this position by stating that Takegawa explicitly states that attributes like average travel time are merely static records stored in a pre-established map database, and that Takegawa simply reads fixed, compiled values from a database to assist with route searches or driver assistance. Remarks at p. 15. Examiner does not disagree that Takegawa teaches obtaining data from a database. However, this satisfies the present claim 1 because there no requirement that the data be obtained in “real-time” and “dynamically” as Applicant repeats throughout the Remarks. Those terms, or any words that could be interpreted to mean real-time or dynamic, are not in the current claim set. As such, there is no requirement for the data to be collected in real-time.
Applicant argues that the limitation of “through which the vehicle has passed a same road repeatedly” excludes stored data that was previous collected as the vehicle passed the same road before. It does not. And Takegawa teaches data stored for each link that is collected from the vehicle that passes the same road repeatedly. That is how the various attributes taught by Takegawa are determined.
Examiner further notes that the claims, as presently written, do not require “active, dynamic geometric optimization of section nodes” as Applicant repeats throughout the Remarks.
In conclusion, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, and 14 are unpersuasive for all the reasons set forth above. Applicant has not provided any independent arguments for dependent claims 2-12.
Applicant’s Alleged Internal Inconsistency
Applicant argues that a material inconsistency has occurred between Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and the Examiner’s explicit Indication of Allowable Subject Matter. Remarks at p. 16. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant cherry-picks five words out of claim 8 and alleges that the limitation set forth in claim 8 is the same as what is set forth in claim 1. In other words, Applicant is stating that the scope of claim 8 is expressly recited in claim 1. Examiner does not interpret claim 8 that way. A dependent claim must further narrow the independent claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).
As such, claim 8 is interpreted as being narrower in scope than claim 1. This is particularly true since the limitation, as a whole, includes elements that do not appear in independent claim 1, such as merging the section nodes in the node group by using mode reliability of each plurality of section nodes includes in the node group as a weight. An important reason why these limitations cannot be interpreted to be recited in claim 1 is the fact that node groups are not recited in claim 1 at all, neither is tracking the section links and designating the node group, or extracting section nodes as a node list. That is because claim 8 depends from claim 3, which depends from claim 2. Therefore, claim 8 is not merely encompassed in claim 1, it includes all the limitations of claim 1, 2, 3, and 8.
As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and no internal inconsistency has occurred.
Companion Foreign Prosecution History
Applicant argues that the present claims should be allowable because the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) previously allowed the same claims. Remarks at p. 17. Applicant further states that “KIPO examined the same claim set against identical prior art standards and allowed all claims without issuing a single notice of grounds for rejection.” Id. There is no evidence in the record that the KIPO considered the identical prior art. Applicant filed the PCT documents, which do not disclose consideration of Takegawa. Furthermore, Applicant did not disclose Takegawa on an IDS. Regardless, the granting or rejecting of a patent application by a foreign patent office is not given weight when applying US examination standards under the MPEP.
As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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:
“an image captured by an image capturing device” (claim 1 and 13; example of supporting structure found on page 7, which includes a camera mounted on the vehicle);
(A) The limitation recited above uses the generic placeholder “device” for performing a claimed function, or other generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181, 1A (“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” Welker Bearing Co., v. PHO, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008”). Accordingly, recitation of “device” above passes prong A.
(B) the phrase preceding the bolded portion in the limitation above constitute functional language modifying the generic terms in prong (A), respectively.
(C) the term preceding “device” above does not connote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. In addition, none of the generic placeholders recited in (A) are modified by sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-12 recite a method, therefore claims 1-12 are a process, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 13 recites an apparatus, therefore claim 13 is a machine, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having a program to cause a computer to perform, therefore claim 14 is a machine, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis, 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. Claim 1 recites:
A lane centerline network determination method, the method performed by a processor included in a lane centerline network determination apparatus, comprising:
obtaining a driving trajectory of a vehicle by using a global positioning system (GPS) mounted on the vehicle;
matching a road map with the driving trajectory;
generating road feature information considering the driving trajectory based on an image captured by an image capturing device mounted on the vehicle;
determining a position of a section node dividing a road on the road map into a plurality of sections based on the road feature information;
determining a lane centerline placement for each section by determining a lane centerline for the traveling lane of the vehicle among a plurality of lanes included in the section based on the driving trajectory, and estimating lane centerlines for remaining lanes;
determining a final longitudinal position of the section node based on reliability of the section node for each of driving trajectories through which the vehicle has passed a same road repeatedly;
determining a section network connection relationship between the section, a previous section, and a next section based on the lane centerline placement for each section;
determining a geometry of the lane centerline placement for each section based on reliability of a section link connecting the section nodes to each other; and
generating a lane centerline network based on the section network connection relationship and a lane centerline geometry within the section.
These limitations, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as certain mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as in the mind (or on paper). For example, “matching a road map…,” “determining a position…,” “determining a lane centerline…,” “determining a final longitudinal position…,” “determining a section network…,” “determining a geometry of the lane centerline placement…,” and “generating a lane centerline network…” encompass a human mentally creating a centerline network by determining the centerline in a series of road segments and connecting the reliable centerlines into a network and/or use of a computer to perform mathematical calculations for creating a centerline network by determining the centerline in a series of road segments and connecting the reliable centerlines into a network. Thus, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims of similar scope of claim 1 also recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 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. 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 lane centerline network determination method, the method performed by a processor included in a lane centerline network determination apparatus, comprising:
obtaining a driving trajectory of a vehicle by using a global positioning system (GPS) mounted on the vehicle;
matching a road map with the driving trajectory;
generating road feature information considering the driving trajectory based on an image captured by an image capturing device mounted on the vehicle;
determining a position of a section node dividing a road on the road map into a plurality of sections based on the road feature information;
determining a lane centerline placement for each section by determining a lane centerline for the traveling lane of the vehicle among a plurality of lanes included in the section based on the driving trajectory, and estimating lane centerlines for remaining lanes;
determining a final longitudinal position of the section node based on reliability of the section node for each of driving trajectories through which the vehicle has passed a same road repeatedly;
determining a section network connection relationship between the section, a previous section, and a next section based on the lane centerline placement for each section;
determining a geometry of the lane centerline placement for each section based on reliability of a section link connecting the section nodes to each other; and
generating a lane centerline network based on the section network connection relationship and a lane centerline geometry within the section.
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.
The limitation of “obtaining a driving trajectory…” and “an image captured by an image device” merely describes how to generally gather data, i.e., receiving, recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, the uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for creating a centerline network by determining the centerline in a series of road segments and connecting the reliable centerlines into a network, 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).
Specifically with respect to claim 13, the additional elements of a memory and processor are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by using a general processor and computer system to perform the process. In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do 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, representative independent claim 1 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of memory and a processor creating a centerline network by determining the centerline in a series of road segments and connecting the reliable centerlines into a network amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, the “obtaining a driving trajectory” and “image captured by an image capturing device” amounts to nothing more than insignificant extra solution activities through mere data gathering.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitation of “obtaining a driving trajectory…” and “image captured by an image capturing device” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Additionally, the remaining elements have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
a. data gathering… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 13, and 14 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-12 have been given the full two-part analysis and determined not to 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 well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, claims 2-12 are directed to additional aspects of the judicial exception (“extracting…,” “tracking the section links and designating…,” “designating as the node group…,” “removing…section nodes…,” “determining final longitudinal position…,” “correcting final longitudinal position…,” “determining road feature information…,” “determining reliability of the link group…”). Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2020/0307576 to Takegawa (previously of record).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 14, Takegawa discloses:
A lane centerline network determination method, the method performed by a processor included in a lane centerline network determination apparatus, comprising:
obtaining a driving trajectory of a vehicle by using a global positioning system (GPS) mounted on the vehicle; matching a road map with the driving trajectory (¶¶ [0048], [0052] describing obtaining trajectories via GPS mounted on a vehicle and matching a road map to the trajectory);
generating road feature information considering the driving trajectory based on an image captured by an image capturing device mounted on the vehicle (¶ [0071] describing capturing images of road feature information via camera mounted on the vehicle);
determining a position of a section node dividing a road on the road map into a plurality of sections based on the road feature information (¶ [0057] describing nodes segmenting the roadway into a plurality of sections based on feature information; See also Figure 8 depicting the segmented roadway nodes and links);
determining a lane centerline placement for each section by determining a lane centerline for the traveling lane of the vehicle among a plurality of lanes included in the section based on the driving trajectory, and estimating lane centerlines for remaining lanes (¶ [0063] describing determining a lane centerline (carriageway) for each section of the lane traveled on and a estimating the centerline for a plurality of other lanes; Figure 9 depicting the plurality of lanes having nodes, segmented links, and centerlines);
determining a final longitudinal position of the section node based on reliability of the section node for each of driving trajectories through which the vehicle has passed a same road repeatedly (¶¶ [0059] – [0063] describing determining final position of the section nodes based on reliability of the node information stored in the node list data that is created based on historical data collected as vehicle that have passed through the same road, including various attributes on the link, such as a road type of the link, an average travel time, traffic restrictions, a speed limit, or the like, a link length representing the length of the link, the width/lane information representing the width and the number of lanes of the link, and a link shape representing a road shape of the link);
determining a section network connection relationship between the section, a previous section, and a next section based on the lane centerline placement for each section (¶¶ [0061] – [0063] describing determining a section network connection between the different sections based on centerline placement and geometry);
determining a geometry of the lane centerline placement for each section based on reliability of a section link connecting the section nodes to each other (¶ [0081] describing correcting the geometry of the centerline based on reliability of the section link when compared to the map so as to connect correctly; see also ¶ [0063] describing centerline geometry); and
generating a lane centerline network based on the section network connection relationship and a lane centerline geometry within the section (Figure 9 depicting the generated lane centerline network based on the section connection relationship and the centerline geometry; see also ¶ [0063] describing the centerline network structure of lane starting nodes and lane ending nodes and links therebetween).
Regarding claim 2, Takegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Takegawa further discloses:
wherein
the section comprises section nodes and a section link connecting the section nodes to each other (Figure 8),
the method further comprises extracting, as a node list, section nodes generated from the driving trajectories estimated to have traveled the same road based on a certain criterion, and road feature information corresponding to a section to which a certain section node belongs is matched with the certain section node (¶¶ [0060] – [0063] describing the node list generated from various attributes from the roadway previously traveled on, and road features corresponding to the section with which the nodes are matched).
Claim 13 contains all the elements of claim 1, but with the additional elements of a processor and memory (¶ [0082]). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Claim 14 contains all the limitations of claim 1, but with the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium (¶ [0083]). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takegawa in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0356292 to Lin (previously of record).
Regarding claim 3, Takegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Takegawa does not expressly disclose tracking the section links and designating, as a node group, the section nodes in the node list that are located within a certain distance.
Lin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches tracking section links and designating node groups in a node list based on relative distance from each other (¶ [0033] describing tracking section links by grouping the nodes based on a neighboring relation between the nodes, i.e. based on a relative distance from each other; see also ¶ [0093]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takegawa’s invention to incorporate grouping the section nodes contained in the node list based on relative distance from each other and that have the same road feature information, as taught by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining the intersection node group corresponding to each multiway intersection, thus synchronous identification of the multiway intersection is realized and identification efficiency of the multiway intersections is improved (Lin at ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Takegawa and Lin renders obvious all limitations of claim 3.
Takegawa does not expressly disclose designating, as a node group, the section nodes in the node list that are located within a certain distance and have the same road feature information.
Lin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches tracking section links and designating node groups in a node list based on relative distance from each other and have the same road feature information (¶ [0033] describing tracking section links by grouping the nodes based on a neighboring relation between the nodes, i.e. based on a relative distance from each other, and have the same road feature information of being part of an intersection; see also ¶ [0093]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takegawa’s invention to incorporate grouping the section nodes contained in the node list based on relative distance from each other and that have the same road feature information, as taught by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining the intersection node group corresponding to each multiway intersection, thus synchronous identification of the multiway intersection is realized and identification efficiency of the multiway intersections is improved (Lin at ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Takegawa and Lin renders obvious all limitations of claim 4.
Neither Takegawa nor Lin expressly teach wherein the designating as the node group comprises, when there is no section node having the same road feature information within the certain distance, inserting a certain section node into a section link with a similar direction and a shortest distance and separating a lane centerline.
However, Lin does teach setting the nodes at a predetermined distance within each node group, and removing nodes that are less than the predetermined distance from a neighboring node (¶ [0053] describing the predetermined nodal distance and removing nodes that are in between nodes that are positioned at the predetermined distance from each other).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Takegawa’s invention to incorporate adding nodes when the nodes are further apart than the predetermined distance for the node group in the same way that Lin teaches removing nodes that are less than the predetermined distance apart within the node group with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining the intersection node group corresponding to each multiway intersection, thus synchronous identification of the multiway intersection is realized and identification efficiency of the multiway intersections is improved (Lin at ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Takegawa and Lin renders obvious all limitations of claim 3. Lin further teaches:
removing, from the section nodes in the node group, section nodes whose front/back position relationships are different based on an intersection section included in the road feature information (¶¶ [0051] – [0054] removing a node in an intersection whose relationship is different than the other nodes).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takegawa’s invention to incorporate grouping the section nodes contained in the node list based on relative distance from each other and that have the same road feature information, and removing nodes that have a different relationship than the group of intersection nodes, as taught by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining the intersection node group corresponding to each multiway intersection, thus synchronous identification of the multiway intersection is realized and identification efficiency of the multiway intersections is improved (Lin at ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Takegawa and Lin renders obvious all limitations of claim 3. Lin further teaches:
when a certain section node belongs to a plurality of node groups, designating, as a node group of the certain section node, a node group that has a high road feature information similarity to the certain section node and a closer distance to the certain section node (¶¶ [0040] – [0045] describing nodes belonging to intra-group within groups and designating a single intra-group node group as corresponding to the intersection node group to represent the multiway intersection based on high road feature information similarity).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takegawa’s invention to incorporate grouping the section nodes contained in the node list based on relative distance from each other and that have the same road feature information, and removing nodes that have a different relationship than the group of intersection nodes, as taught by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining the intersection node group corresponding to each multiway intersection, thus synchronous identification of the multiway intersection is realized and identification efficiency of the multiway intersections is improved (Lin at ¶ [0037]).
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, if Applicant overcomes the above § 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potential allowable subject matter:
The combination of claim limitations of determining a final longitudinal position of a representative section node, which merges the section nodes in the node group, by using node reliability of each of the plurality of section nodes included in the node group as a weight of claim 8, when considered with all other claim features contained in the claims from which claim 8 depends, renders the claim, as well as its dependents, novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The closest prior art, Takegawa and Lin, teaches obtaining a driving trajectory using GPS, matching a road map, generating road feature information based on an image, determining section node position, determining centerline placement for each section, determining final longitudinal position of the section node, determining a section network connection relationship, determining a geometry of the lane centerline placement, generating a lane centerline network comprising section not and section links, extracting a node list and road features, and designating, as a node group, the nodes in the list that are located within a certain distance. However, there is no teaching of merging the section nodes in the node group, by using node reliability of each of the plurality of section nodes included in the node group as a weight.
As such, the combination of Takegawa and Lin does not teach the combination of determining a final longitudinal position of a representative section node, which merges the section nodes in the node group, by using node reliability of each of the plurality of section nodes included in the node group as a weight, as required by claim 8. No other prior art has been found which remedies the deficiencies of the Takegawa and Lin combination. Therefore, the claim 8 would be allowable over the prior art. Claims 9-12 depend from claim 8 and would be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0355506 to Muto teaches generation of centerline network via image data collected in real-time (Figures 3-7 and description thereof).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/3/26
Prosecution Insights