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 .
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 11 September 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Office Action, page 2. Particularly, the Examiner alleges that claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Office Action page 2. Specifically, The Office Action argues that the claims constitute a "mental process" because the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Id., page 3. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Brief Argument
The Office Action alleges that the claim recites a mental process. This mischaracterizes the invention and the actual claim scope. The pending claims are directed to specific, technical improvements to computer-based validation of digital mapping outputs generated from sensor data in autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles. The claims do not recite a mental process but instead are rooted in computer technology and solve a computer-centric problem using a specific, non-generic arrangement of technical steps and systems.
For example, each recited step (e.g., sensor data acquisition, synchronized map
generation, machine learning defect detection, graphical UI display, spatial user correction (bounding box), automated cropping, and action initiation) necessarily requires computer implementation and cannot be performed mentally or by pen and paper. The required synchronizing and forming a composite geometry map from two independently operating mapping systems is a technical operation unique to vehicle and digital mapping technology.
Even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede) are integrated into a practical application when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Amended claim 1 now expressly recites, inter alia:
synchronize a geometry map of an environment where the vehicle is located that is generated by overlaying an internal mapping system of the vehicle with a geometry map of the environment that is generated by an external mapping system of the vehicle to form a composite geometry map; automatically identify, using a machine learning model, a defective area of the geometry composite map; provide, via a user interface at a user device, the composite geometry map and the defective area"; crop the defective area of the composite geometry map based on the bounding box; and initiate an action based on the adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map.
These clarifications underscore the concrete, computer-implemented operations unique to vehicle mapping technology and the closed-loop remediation workflow that yields improved map accuracy, reduced bandwidth, and enhanced safety. See, e.g., Spec. paragraphs [0029], [0058], [0067]. [0088].
Step 2A, Prong 1: The Claims are not Directed to an Abstract Idea
The Office Action mischaracterizes Applicant's claim limitations. For example, The Office Action characterizes steps such as "generate,""identify," and "crop" as activities performable in the human mind. However, the claims require producing two separate digital maps via an internal vehicle mapping system and an external SLAM mapping system and then "synchroniz[ing]" and "overlaying" them "to form a composite geometry map." As described, this entails timestamp alignment, covariance handling, and multi-sensor data association across independent pipelines (e.g., cameras, LIDARs, IMUs), which cannot be carried out mentally and are rooted in vehicle mapping technology. Spec. paragraphs [0058]-[0067]. The automatic identification of "defective area[s]" employs a trained machine learning classifier using domain- specific features such as GPS factor residuals and uncertainty covariances, evaluated over a discrete geospatial index. Id., paragraphs [0066]-[0068].
Furthermore, the bounding box is not a generic UI input. Rather, the bounding box is a spatially defined polygon drawn with UI tools that directly interacts with the georeferenced defective region of the composite map and drives machine-executed cropping and enable new feedback and action mechanisms not conventional in existing mapping or user interface technology. Id., [0070], [0084]. The "initiat[ed]" actions are likewise technical, including networked retrieval of sensor data from a second vehicle in the environment and retraining of the machine learning model in response to the user's spatial adjustment. Id., paragraphs [0071]-[0073], [0089]. None of these operations can be performed with pen and paper and are not merely "mathematical" steps divorced from a technological context.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The Claims Integrate Any Alleged Exception into a Practical Application
Even if the Examiner were to find an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claims, as a whole, integrate any such exception into a practical application. The claimed system is necessarily tied to and improves particular machines: an internal vehicle mapping system and an external SLAM system whose outputs are synchronized and overlaid to form the composite geometry map that the vehicle then uses for localization and navigation. Spec. paragraphs [0026]-[0029] and [0058]-[0063]. The ordered combination yields multiple asserted technical improvements: improved accuracy and reliability by reconciling independent maps and flagging defects with a domain-trained classifier. Id., Spec. paragraphs [0064]-[0068]. Aspects of the disclosed systems and methods may improve bandwidth and computational efficiency via spatially targeted cropping that reduces data volumes transmitted and reviewed. Id., at [0029]. Together, these technological improvements improve safety and navigation through targeted remediation and cross-vehicle validation. Id., paragraphs [0027], [0088]- [0089].
Furthermore, the bounding box is functionally and spatially coupled to the ML-identified defective area of the composite map and triggers automated cropping and downstream machine actions. Courts have found such technology-focused UI improvements to integrate an exception into a practical application. See, e.g., Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Likewise, the claims reflect an improvement to computer-based mapping technology itself, akin to the eligible improvements recognized in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improved data structure), and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (automation via rules improving the technology). Here, the specific synchronization/overlay workflow among two mapping systems and the closed-loop remediation with spatially targeted corrections yield tangible improvements in the functioning of the mapping system and the networked vehicle platform.
Step 2B: The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept
Even if the Claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims recite "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea. As amended, claim 1 recites a non-conventional ordered combination that provides technical improvements not shown to be well-understood, routine, or conventional. For example, the synchronization/overlay to form a composite geometry map from two independently operating mapping pipelines (e.g., internal vehicle mapping and external SLAM) and using a domain-specific machine learning classifier to identify defective regions, coupled with a spatially targeted bounding-box correction that automatically drives cropping and downstream technical actions, is a specific, non-generic architecture. See BASCOM Glob. InternetServs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (inventive concept in non-conventional arrangement of known components).
Furthermore, the claimed loop yields improved map accuracy, reduced bandwidth, safer navigation, and enables automated, networked actions such as retrieving corroborating sensor data from a second vehicle and retraining the machine learning model. Spec. paragraphs, [0029], [0071]-[0073], and [0088]-[0089]. These are concrete, technology-centric effects, not post-solution activity.
The Examiners Response:
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding the claimed invention, the claims have a system that synchronize/combine maps generated by a vehicle and maps generated by a remote system, identifying invalid areas in the combined map, showing the map to the user to receive an input from them (such as cropping) and performing an action based on the user input, the claims do not make mention of the type of map data being handled for the synchronization or the intricacies of the user interface, it is the subject matter of the claims, not embodiments disclosed in the Specification, that we analyze. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]ny reliance on the specification in the § 101 analysis must always yield to the claim language. . . . [T]he specification cannot be used to import details from the specification if those details are not claimed.”). The claims do have mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper as the current claims merely involve combining data, identifying poor data and cropping data, furthermore, the inclusion of a computer/processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention, See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 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. Providing/displaying a map to a user, obtaining user input and initiating an action be insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood routine activities.
Furthermore, the addition of the “machine learning model” as an additional element is not sufficient to claim a practical application or amount to significantly more than a judicial exception as the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and it can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
Finally, the improvement of the functioning of the mapping system and the networked vehicle platform is never explicitly mentioned in the currently amended claims and for the improvement to be indicative of integration into a practical application, it cannot be an improvement to an abstract idea, it must be "to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)). 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. 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 1-20 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 11 September 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 § 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 1-20 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 system and claim 11 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 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 claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising: a memory;
and
synchronize a geometry map of an environment where the vehicle is located that is generated by overlaying an internal mapping system of the vehicle with a geometry map of the environment that is generated by an external mapping system of the vehicle to form a composite geometry map;
automatically identify, using a machine learning model, a defective area of the geometry composite map;
provide, via a user interface at a user device, the composite geometry map and the defective area;
receive a bounding box from the user device, wherein the bounding box identifies an adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map;
crop the defective area of the composite geometry map based on the bounding box;
and initiate an action based on the adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map.
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, “synchronize …”, “identify …” and “crop …” 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. Furthermore, the claimed steps encompass mental choices or evaluations, and the claimed use of a machine learning model encompasses performing mathematical calculations. 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 system comprising: a memory;
and
synchronize a geometry map of an environment where the vehicle is located that is generated by overlaying an internal mapping system of the vehicle with a geometry map of the environment that is generated by an external mapping system of the vehicle to form a composite geometry map;
automatically identify, using a machine learning model, a defective area of the geometry composite map;
provide, via a user interface at a user device, the composite geometry map and the defective area;
receive a bounding box from the user device, wherein the bounding box identifies an adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map;
crop the defective area of the composite geometry map based on the bounding box;
and initiate an action based on the adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map.
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 receiving is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information for use in other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Providing/displaying a map to a user is a well-understood routine activities and initiating an action is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claim 1 further recite “A system comprising: a memory; and one or more processors that is configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory for causing the one or more processors to” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose mapping 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. In addition, the use of a machine learning model merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the mental process steps is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The recitation of “machine learning model” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
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 providing information and receiving information is a well-understood, routine and conventional activities as it merely being done through a user interface, see Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (holding that “generic computer components such as an ‘interface’ . . . do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement”). 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 2-10 and 12-20 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 define terms or have additional steps such as “retrieving”, “retraining”, “received” and “provide”. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-20 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, 3, 8, 10-11, 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20240419904 A1) in view of Mori (US 20220268598 A1) in view of Barton (US 6718258 B1) in view of Edecker (US 20140280180 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu teaches A system comprising (see at least [¶035, 041 & 0101]):
a memory; and one or more processors that is configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory for causing the one or more processors to (see at least [¶035, 041 & 0101]):
automatically identify, using a machine learning model, a defective area of the geometry composite map (Automatically identify area with errors in a map using a machine learning model. see at least [¶038, 075 & 077]);
provide, via a user interface at a user device, the composite geometry map and the defective area (Provide a map with identified errors to a user interface on a user device. see at least [¶039, 078, 081, 083 & 0126-0127]);
Wu does not explicitly teach synchronize a geometry map of an environment where the vehicle is located that is generated by overlaying an internal mapping system of the vehicle with a geometry map of the environment that is generated by an external mapping system of the vehicle to form a composite geometry map.
However, Mori does teach synchronize a geometry map of an environment where the vehicle is located that is generated by overlaying an internal mapping system of the vehicle with a geometry map of the environment that is generated by an external mapping system of the vehicle to form a composite geometry map (Synchronize a map of an environment where a vehicle is located by overlaying/superimposing a map created by the internal vehicle system to a map that is created by an external mapping system to form a composite/combines map. see at least [¶028-030, 039-040, 050-052 & 058-64]).
Mori would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of map generation. 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 Wu to use the technique of synchronizing a geometry map of an environment where the vehicle is located that is generated by overlaying an internal mapping system of the vehicle with a geometry map of the environment that is generated by an external mapping system of the vehicle to form a composite geometry map as taught by Mori. Doing so would lead to improved generation of a combined map for vehicle navigation (see at least [¶060]).
Wu and Mori do not explicitly teach receive a bounding box from the user device, wherein the bounding box identifies an adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map; and initiate an action based on the adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map.
However, Barton does teach receive a bounding box from the user device, wherein the bounding box identifies an adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map (Receive an input bounding box/shape from a user using a user device, the bounding box/shape identifies a change to the wrong area of a map. see at least [Column 4, Lines 49-53 & Column 5, Lines 10-38]);
and initiate an action based on the adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map (Initiate an action/measure based on the adjustment/correction to the wrong area of the map. see at least [Column 6, Lines 8-55]).
Barton would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of user feedback for map changes. 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 Wu and Mori to use the technique of receiving a bounding box from the user device, wherein the bounding box identifies an adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map; and initiate an action based on the adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map as taught by Barton. Doing so would lead to improved user experience for marking errors in a map (see at least [Column 6-7, Lines 58-6]).
Wu, Mori and Barton do not explicitly teach crop the defective area of the composite geometry map based on the bounding box.
However, Edecker does teach crop the defective area of the composite geometry map based on the bounding box (Crop a desired area of a map based on a user bounding box. see at least [¶0211 & 0225]).
Edecker would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of interacting with virtual maps. 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 Wu, Mori and Barton to use the technique of teach cropping the defective area of the composite geometry map based on the bounding box as taught by Edecker. Doing so would lead to improve the visibility of the desired map area (see at least [¶0225]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as shown above, furthermore, Wu teaches retraining the machine learning model based on receiving the bounding box from the at least one user device (Retraining the machine learning model based on the user edits to correct the map, it would be obvious that these edits could include changes through bounding boxes. see at least [¶092]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as shown above, furthermore, Mori teaches wherein the internal mapping system of the vehicle receives sensor data from sensors in the vehicle used to generate the geometry map of the environment (The internal vehicle mapping system receives sensor data from the vehicle to generate the map of the environment. see at least [¶028 & 039-031]).
Mori would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of map generation. 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 Wu to use the technique having the internal mapping system of the vehicle receives sensor data from sensors in the vehicle used to generate the geometry map of the environment as taught by Mori. Doing so would lead to improved generation of a combined map for vehicle navigation (see at least [¶060]).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as shown above, furthermore, Wu teaches wherein the machine learning model is a classifier implemented by a supervised machine learning model (The machine learning model is a classifier that is implemented by a supervised machine learning model. see at least [¶071, 075 & 077 092]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wu teaches A method comprising (see at least [¶035, 041 & 0101]):
automatically identifying, using a machine learning model, a defective area of the geometry composite map (Automatically identify area with errors in a map using a machine learning model. see at least [¶038, 075 & 077]);
providing, via a user interface at a user device, the composite geometry map and the defective area (Provide a map with identified errors to a user interface on a user device. see at least [¶039, 078, 081, 083 & 0126-0127]);
Wu does not explicitly teach synchronizing a geometry map of an environment where the vehicle is located that is generated by overlaying an internal mapping system of the vehicle with a geometry map of the environment that is generated by an external mapping system of the vehicle to form a composite geometry map.
However, Mori does teach synchronizing a geometry map of an environment where the vehicle is located that is generated by overlaying an internal mapping system of the vehicle with a geometry map of the environment that is generated by an external mapping system of the vehicle to form a composite geometry map (Synchronize a map of an environment where a vehicle is located by overlaying/superimposing a map created by the internal vehicle system to a map that is created by an external mapping system to form a composite/combines map. see at least [¶028-030, 039-040, 050-052 & 058-64]).
Mori would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of map generation. 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 Wu to use the technique of synchronizing a geometry map of an environment where the vehicle is located that is generated by overlaying an internal mapping system of the vehicle with a geometry map of the environment that is generated by an external mapping system of the vehicle to form a composite geometry map as taught by Mori. Doing so would lead to improved generation of a combined map for vehicle navigation (see at least [¶060]).
Wu and Mori do not explicitly teach receiving a bounding box from the user device, wherein the bounding box identifies an adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map; and initiating an action based on the adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map.
However, Barton does teach receiving a bounding box from the user device, wherein the bounding box identifies an adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map (Receive an input bounding box/shape from a user using a user device, the bounding box/shape identifies a change to the wrong area of a map. see at least [Column 4, Lines 49-53 & Column 5, Lines 10-38]);
and initiating an action based on the adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map (Initiate an action/measure based on the adjustment/correction to the wrong area of the map. see at least [Column 6, Lines 8-55]).
Barton would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of user feedback for map changes. 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 Wu and Mori to use the technique of receiving a bounding box from the user device, wherein the bounding box identifies an adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map; and initiate an action based on the adjustment to the defective area of the composite geometry map as taught by Barton. Doing so would lead to improved user experience for marking errors in a map (see at least [Column 6-7, Lines 58-6]).
Wu, Mori and Barton do not explicitly teach cropping the defective area of the composite geometry map based on the bounding box.
However, Edecker does teach cropping the defective area of the composite geometry map based on the bounding box (Crop a desired area of a map based on a user bounding box. see at least [¶0211 & 0225]).
Edecker would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of interacting with virtual maps. 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 Wu, Mori and Barton to use the technique of teach cropping the defective area of the composite geometry map based on the bounding box as taught by Edecker. Doing so would lead to improve the visibility of the desired map area (see at least [¶0225]).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20240419904 A1) in view of Mori (US 20220268598 A1) in view of Barton (US 6718258 B1) in view of Edecker (US 20140280180 A1) in further view of Gibson (US 12498228 B1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as shown above, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker do not explicitly teach in response to receiving an adjustment to the defective map area, retrieving sensor data from a second vehicle associated with the environment where the first vehicle is located.
However, Gibson does teach in response to receiving an adjustment to the defective map area, retrieving sensor data from a second vehicle associated with the environment where the first vehicle is located (In response to a user adjusting a defective area of a map, obtaining/retrieving sensor data from a second vehicle in the environment where the first vehicle is located to validate map information. see at least [Column 17-18, Lines 55-22]).
Gibson would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area disparities in map 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 Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker to use the technique of having in response to receiving an adjustment to the defective map area, retrieving sensor data from a second vehicle associated with the environment where the first vehicle is located as taught by Gibson. Doing so would lead to an improved map without disparities used for vehicle navigation/control (see at least [Column 2, Lines 17-56]).
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20240419904 A1) in view of Mori (US 20220268598 A1) in view of Barton (US 6718258 B1) in view of Edecker (US 20140280180 A1) in further view of Hamas (US 20240346637 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as shown above, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker do not explicitly teach wherein the defective area is drawn as a polygon overlaid on the geometry map, and wherein both the polygon and the geometry map are provided to the user interface.
However, Hamas does teach wherein the defective area is drawn as a polygon overlaid on the geometry map, and wherein both the polygon and the geometry map are provided to the user interface (The defective area/portion is drawn as a polygon overlaid on a map, with both the map and polygon displayed to a user for review. see at least [¶029-030 & 052-053]).
Hamas would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of quality checks on maps. 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 Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker to use the technique of having the defective area is drawn as a polygon overlaid on the geometry map, and wherein both the polygon and the geometry map are provided to the user interface as taught by Hamas. Doing so would lead to improved displaying of areas that need to be verified by manual curators (see at least [¶030]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Wu, Mori, Barton, Edecker and Hamas teach all of the limitations of claims 4 and 14 as shown above, furthermore, Hamas teaches wherein the defective area is a three-dimensional object and the polygon is a two-dimensional object (The defective area/portion can include a 3D object and the polygon is a flat 2D object. see at least [¶029-030, 052-053, 059 & 069]).
Hamas would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of quality checks on maps. 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 Wu, Mori Barton and Edecker to use the technique of having the defective area is a three-dimensional object and the polygon is a two-dimensional object as taught by Hamas. Doing so would lead to improved displaying of areas that need to be verified by manual curators (see at least [¶030]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as shown above, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker do not explicitly teach wherein the geometry map is drawn with a first set of polygons and the defective area is drawn with a second polygon that differs from the first set of polygons.
However, Hamas does teach wherein the geometry map is drawn with a first set of polygons and the defective area is drawn with a second polygon that differs from the first set of polygons (The map is drawn with a first set of polygons and the defective area/portion is drawn as a second set of polygons overlaid on the map. see at least [¶029-030 & 052-053]).
Hamas would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of quality checks on maps. 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 Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker to use the technique of having the geometry map is drawn with a first set of polygons and the defective area is drawn with a second polygon that differs from the first set of polygons as taught by Hamas. Doing so would lead to improved displaying of areas that need to be verified by manual curators (see at least [¶030]).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20240419904 A1) in view of Mori (US 20220268598 A1) in view of Barton (US 6718258 B1) in view of Edecker (US 20140280180 A1) in further view of Fechner (“Ethermap Real-time Collaborative Map Editing”, 2015).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as shown above, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker do not explicitly teach wherein the bounding box is a first bounding box received from the user device, and wherein the first bounding box is received concurrently with a second bounding box from a second user device.
However, Fechner does teach wherein the bounding box is a first bounding box received from the user device, and wherein the first bounding box is received concurrently with a second bounding box from a second user device (A first bounding box is received from a user device and a second bounding box can be received from a second user concurrently to allow for collaborative map editing. see art least [Section Approach, Pages 3585-3586, Sub-section: Raising user-awareness, All Paragraphs]).
Fechner would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of collaborative map editing. 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 Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker to use the technique of having the bounding box is a first bounding box received from the user device, and wherein the first bounding box is received concurrently with a second bounding box from a second user device as taught by Fechner. Doing so would lead to improved awareness of editing being done by other users (see at least [Section Approach, Pages 3585-3586, Sub-section: Raising user-awareness, All Paragraphs]).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20240419904 A1) in view of Mori (US 20220268598 A1) in view of Barton (US 6718258 B1) in view of Edecker (US 20140280180 A1) in further view of Li (US 20200109954 A1).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as shown above, Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker do not explicitly teach wherein the external mapping system of the vehicle is a Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) system.
However, Li does teach wherein the external mapping system of the vehicle is a Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) system (The external mapping system of the vehicle uses SLAM to generate the map. see at least [¶0316-0317 & 0354-0355]).
Li would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of map generation. 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 Wu, Mori, Barton and Edecker to use the technique of having the external mapping system of the vehicle is a Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) system as taught by Li. Doing so would lead to improved generation of a map for vehicle navigation (see at least [¶0317 & 0385]).
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