DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were originally presented having a filing date of May 21, 2024 and claiming foreign priority to PCT/CN2024/091262 that was filed on May 6, 2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
There was no Information Disclosure Statement submitted with this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2, the claims state, “wherein the processing circuitry is further to”. This appears to be a typographical error. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets this phrase as, ”wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the additional tracks" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Claim 10 is directed to a processor (i.e., an apparatus).
Claim 16 is directed to a system (i.e., an apparatus).
Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 16 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
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 following 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 (representing claims 10 and 16) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
grouping track data within a region into a plurality of clusters based, at least, on orientation corresponding to tracks represented by the track data;
determining one or more buckets corresponding to reference segments for individual clusters of the plurality of clusters;
selecting, from a first bucket, a first track of the track data;
causing the first track to be further selected for the one or more buckets where a respective track count is below a threshold;
incrementing, responsive to selecting the track for the first bucket and the one or more buckets, the respective track count; and
providing the selected track for use in generating a reconstruction of at least a portion of the region.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “grouping track data within a region into a plurality of clusters based, at least, on orientation corresponding to tracks represented by the track data; determining one or more buckets corresponding to reference segments for individual clusters of the plurality of clusters; selecting, from a first bucket, a first track of the track data; causing the first track to be further selected for the one or more buckets where a respective track count is below a threshold; incrementing, responsive to selecting the track for the first bucket and the one or more buckets, the respective track count; and providing the selected track for use in generating a reconstruction of at least a portion of the region” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing these limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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 idea 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 computer-implemented method, comprising:
grouping track data within a region into a plurality of clusters based, at least, on orientation corresponding to tracks represented by the track data;
determining one or more buckets corresponding to reference segments for individual clusters of the plurality of clusters;
selecting, from a first bucket, a first track of the track data;
causing the first track to be further selected for the one or more buckets where a respective track count is below a threshold;
incrementing, responsive to selecting the track for the first bucket and the one or more buckets, the respective track count; and
providing the selected track for use in generating a reconstruction of at least a portion of the region.
For the following reasons, 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 of a “computer-implemented method”, it merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose mapping environment. The computer-implemented method is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the abstract idea steps.
Thus, 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 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 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, 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 as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer (i.e., a computer-implemented method) to perform the ““grouping track data within a region into a plurality of clusters based, at least, on orientation corresponding to tracks represented by the track data; determining one or more buckets corresponding to reference segments for individual clusters of the plurality of clusters; selecting, from a first bucket, a first track of the track data; causing the first track to be further selected for the one or more buckets where a respective track count is below a threshold; incrementing, responsive to selecting the track for the first bucket and the one or more buckets, the respective track count; and providing the selected track for use in generating a reconstruction of at least a portion of the region” 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 of a “computer-implemented method”, the Examiner submits that this additional element is a generic computer and is insignificant extra-solution activities at an “apply-it” level.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a computer-implemented method”, is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer within a mapping system. 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 2-9 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 well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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.
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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabrikant, et al. (Publication US 2016/0189186 A1) in view of Ma, et al. (Publication US 2016/0102986 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Fabrikant” and “Ma”.)
As per claim 1, Fabrikant discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
grouping track data within a region into a plurality of clusters … [see at least Fabrikant [0030] "Once all localized segments are estimated into respective geographic region buckets, various processing features are implemented for each region bucket. Initially, in each geographic region bucket, one or more clustering canopies can be identified, where a clustering canopy constitutes a group of localized segments in the given region bucket that satisfy a potential geographic overlap characterization."];
determining one or more buckets corresponding to reference segments for individual clusters of the plurality of clusters [see at least Fabrikant [0030] "Once all localized segments are estimated into respective geographic region buckets, various processing features are implemented for each region bucket..."];
selecting, from a first bucket, a first track of the track data [see at least Fabrikant [0032] "Once the clustering techniques are used to associate various localized segments together in a data structure, additional aspects of the disclosed technology concern a corresponding determination of semantic place data to selected correlated segments. In the generated data structure, various types of semantic place data for one or more localized segments in each geographic region bucket can be associated with one or more nodes in the hierarchical clustering configuration. In one example, one or more localized segments that are associated with semantic place data can be used to associate other nodes in the data structure with the semantic place data of one or more given segments based in at least in part on the data structure...."];
causing the first track to be further selected for the one or more buckets where a respective track count is below a threshold [see at least Fabrikant [0075] "...Location classifiers can be assigned at (336) that distinguish one or more location entities based on the groupings of selected time series of historical location data reports that are determined at (334) to be sufficiently overlapping. The classifiers can then be used to determine at (338) semantic data for one or more other time series or location data reports."; [0052] "...a clustering canopy is defined for a set of grid points or other points in the geographic region bucket, and a localized segment belongs to every clustering canopy whose point is within a threshold distance of the estimated physical location of at least some threshold number or fraction of the segment's location data reports...."];
incrementing, responsive to selecting the track for the first bucket and the one or more buckets, the respective track count [see at least Fabrikant [0075] "...The classifiers can then be used to determine at (338) semantic data for one or more other time series or location data reports."]; and
providing the selected track for use in generating a reconstruction of at least a portion of the region [see at least Fabrikant [0059] "FIG. 7 provides a graphical representation of an example data structure 540 generated using hierarchical clustering applied to the localized segments from FIG. 6."]
Fabrikant fails to disclose … clusters based, at least on orientation corresponding to tracks represented by the track data… . However, Ma teaches this limitation [see at least Ma [0069] "...the first apparatus 102 is configured to group together probe data comprising vehicle trajectories which have common heading angles at respective points of entry to and exit from the road intersection 212."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Fabrikant to use … clusters based, at least on orientation corresponding to tracks represented by the track data… as disclosed in Ma with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved navigation that provides more detailed information about road networks. [See at least Ma [0003].]
As per claim 2, the combination of Fabrikant and Ma, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fabrikant discloses …further comprising:
selecting a second track of the track data from a second bucket [see at least Fabrikant [0052] "...In another example, a clustering canopy is defined for a set of grid points or other points in the geographic region bucket, and a localized segment belongs to every clustering canopy whose point is within a threshold distance of the estimated physical location of at least some threshold number or fraction of the segment's location data reports."];
determining that the respective bucket count for one or more buckets associated with the second track exceeds the threshold [see at least Fabrikant [0052] "...In another example, a clustering canopy is defined for a set of grid points or other points in the geographic region bucket, and a localized segment belongs to every clustering canopy whose point is within a threshold distance of the estimated physical location of at least some threshold number or fraction of the segment's location data reports."]; and
selecting a third track of the track data from the second bucket [see at least Fabrikant [0052] "...In another example, a clustering canopy is defined for a set of grid points or other points in the geographic region bucket, and a localized segment belongs to every clustering canopy whose point is within a threshold distance of the estimated physical location of at least some threshold number or fraction of the segment's location data reports."]
As per claim 3, the combination of Fabrikant and Ma, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fabrikant discloses … further comprising:
iteratively selecting additional tracks of the track data while the respective bucket count for each bucket is below the threshold [see at least Fabrikant [0052] "... In another example, a clustering canopy is defined for a set of grid points or other points in the geographic region bucket, and a localized segment belongs to every clustering canopy whose point is within a threshold distance of the estimated physical location of at least some threshold number or fraction of the segment's location data reports."]
As per claim 5, the combination of Fabrikant and Ma, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fabrikant discloses …wherein the plurality of clusters are determined based at least on a grid segmentation of the track data over the region [see at least Fabrikant [0029] "...the geographic confines of a city may be categorized into a rectangular grid of geographic region buckets. Each localized segment is then estimated as belonging to one or more of these geographic region buckets."]
As per claim 6, the combination of Fabrikant and Ma, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fabrikant discloses … further comprising:
merging segments of one or more tracks determined to correspond to a single road feature [see at least Fabrikant [0031] "...In some examples, one or more processing algorithms such as a canopy hierarchical agglomerative clustering (HAC) algorithm is employed to generate the data structure. In some examples, the HAC algorithm uses a linkage merging heuristic. In some examples, the linkage merging heuristic used is average linkage merging."]
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabrikant, in view of Ma, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beaurepaire, et al. (Publication US 2019/0353486 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Beaurepaire.)
As per claim 4, the combination of Fabrikant and Ma, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fabrikant discloses … further comprising:
…selecting a portion of an additional track for the at least one bucket [see at least Fabrikant [0057] "...In some examples, the clustering algorithm uses average linking merging or single linkage merging, with an optional defined score threshold for terminating the merging."]; and
incrementing the respective bucket count for the at least one bucket [see at least Fabrikant [0075] "...The classifiers can then be used to determine at (338) semantic data for one or more other time series or location data reports."]
The combination of Fabrikant and Ma fails to disclose … determining that the respective bucket count for at least one bucket is below a minimum track threshold … . However, Beaurepaire teaches this limitation [see at least Beaurepaire [0043] "… If the number of samples is below the threshold, the confidence can decrease monotonically with the number of samples to 0% confidence where no samples are available."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Fabrikant and Ma to use … determining that the respective bucket count for at least one bucket is below a minimum track threshold … as disclosed in Beaurepaire with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of allowing a user to weigh the potential benefits of following a route with a lower confidence against the uncertainty of that route. [See at least Beaurepaire [0044].]
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabrikant, in view of Ma, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka, et al. (Publication US 2024/0377222 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Tanaka”.)
As per claim 7, the combination of Fabrikant and Ma, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fabrikant discloses … further comprising:
selecting additional tracks until each bucket for the region has at least a minimum number of tracks [see at least Fabrikant [0057] "...In some examples, the clustering algorithm uses average linking merging or single linkage merging, with an optional defined score threshold for terminating the merging."]
The combination of Fabrikant and Ma fails to disclose … performing registration of the first track and the selected tracks before providing the selected track for use in generating the reconstruction of at least the portion of the region. However, Tanaka teaches this limitation [see at least Tanaka [0069] "...The detection unit 62 moves the positions of the individual features represented by the series of probe data, using the calculated coefficients of affine transformation, to execute registration between these features and the corresponding features represented in the map information."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Fabrikant and Ma to use … performing registration of the first track and the selected tracks before providing the selected track for use in generating the reconstruction of at least the portion of the region as disclosed in Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of appropriately updating map information while preventing an increase in communication traffic required to collect probe data. [See at least Tanaka [0005].]
As per claim 8, the combination of Fabrikant and Ma, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fabrikant discloses … wherein the generating the reconstruction of at least the portion of the region includes updating existing map data for the region … [See at least Fabrikant [0039] "...geographic map interface 102 could illustrate approximate physical locations contained in, or inferred from, location data reports in the form of dots or other icons representative of periodically obtained specific snapshots of user locations in time, as opposed to interpolating between the received location data reports using the continuous time location track shown by routes 104-132, respectively. For example, instead of showing a continuous route for each mobile device user location, a single icon or marker could be illustrated to show user location in intervals, for example, every predetermined number of seconds or minutes."]
Fabrikant fails to disclose … wherein the registration is performed with respect to a set of map priors. However, Tanaka teaches this limitation [see at least Tanaka [0070] "...when there are features of the same type separated by at most a predetermined distance and represented by each of a predetermined amount of collected probe data in some road section, the detection unit 62 determines that the features represented by these pieces of probe data are the same feature. When no corresponding feature is represented in the map information within the predetermined distance of the same feature represented by these pieces of probe data, a new feature may be provided after the last update of the map information."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Fabrikant and Ma to use … wherein the registration is performed with respect to a set of map priors as disclosed in Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of appropriately updating map information while preventing an increase in communication traffic required to collect probe data. [See at least Tanaka [0005].]
Claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabrikant, in view of Ma, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anwar, et al. (Publication US 2019/01750519 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Anwar”.)
As per claim 9, the combination of Fabrikant and Ma, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Fabrikant and Ma fails to disclose … further comprising: selecting the additional tracks to achieve an average track density for the buckets of the region. However, Anwar teaches this limitation [see at least Anwar [0078] "...At 325, the server computer 105 executing the mapping application 110 with missing feature detection instructions 115 generates a density map with remaining telemetry probes. Generating a density map with remaining telemetry probes can be carried out over any number of map tiles containing remaining telemetry probes."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Fabrikant and Ma to use … further comprising: selecting the additional tracks to achieve an average track density for the buckets of the region as disclosed in Anwar with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving mapping accuracy. [See at least Anwar [0003].]
Claims 10-11, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabrikant, in view of Beaurepaire.
As per claim 10, Fabrikant discloses at least one processor comprising:
processing circuitry [see at least Fabrikant [0078] "The computing devices 604 and/or 624 can respectively include one or more processor(s) 606, 626 and one or more memory devices 608, 628. The one or more processor(s) 606, 626 can include any suitable processing device, such as a microprocessor, microcontroller, integrated circuit, logic device, one or more central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs) dedicated to efficiently rendering images or performing other specialized calculations, and/or other processing devices."] to:
generate a set of clustered track segments across a set of buckets [see at least Fabrikant [0030] "Once all localized segments are estimated into respective geographic region buckets, various processing features are implemented for each region bucket. Initially, in each geographic region bucket, one or more clustering canopies can be identified, where a clustering canopy constitutes a group of localized segments in the given region bucket that satisfy a potential geographic overlap characterization."];
iteratively select tracks from individual buckets of the set of buckets … [see at least Fabrikant [0075] "...The classifiers can then be used to determine at (338) semantic data for one or more other time series or location data reports."]; and
generate a road segment representation based, at least, on the selected tracks from one or more of the buckets [see at least Fabrikant [0059] "FIG. 7 provides a graphical representation of an example data structure 540 generated using hierarchical clustering applied to the localized segments from FIG. 6."]
Fabrikant fails to disclose … until at least a minimum threshold number of tracks is selected for each of the buckets where at least the minimum threshold number of tracks are available. However, Beaurepaire teaches this limitation [see at least Beaurepaire [0043] "…to calculate the confidence for the path existence attribute, the map platform 101 determines the number of available probe vehicle samples that indicate the presence of the link (e.g., number of samples that traverse a path that may correspond to a link) and calculates the confidence from the number. For example, if the number of samples is greater than a minimum threshold, the confidence can be calculated as 100% or another relatively high value. If the number of samples is below the threshold, the confidence can decrease monotonically with the number of samples to 0% confidence where no samples are available."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Fabrikant and Ma to use … until at least a minimum threshold number of tracks is selected for each of the buckets where at least the minimum threshold number of tracks are available as disclosed in Beaurepaire with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of allowing a user to weigh the potential benefits of following a route with a lower confidence against the uncertainty of that route. [See at least Beaurepaire [0044].]
As per claim 11, the combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Fabrikant discloses …wherein the processing circuitry is further [configured] to:
receive a set of observations captured using one or more sensors [see at least Fabrikant [0027] "...Example inputs to this computer-implemented technology can be provided in the form of a large corpus of location data reports, for example, location sensor report time series, from a large number of different mobile devices."]; and
generate selectable representations of tracks of data corresponding to the set of observations [see at least Fabrikant [0028] "In some embodiments, in order to obtain the benefits of the techniques described herein, the user may be required to allow the collection and analysis of location information associated with a user or device."; [0029] "From the collection of location data reports received from different mobile devices, localized segments of location data reports can be created by partitioning the location data reports into different time series segments during which a mobile device stayed within a given localized area. Localized segments then can be characterized as belonging to one or more geographic region buckets... ."]
As per claim 14, the combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Fabrikant discloses … wherein the clustered track segments are determined based at least on a grid segmentation of the track data over the region [see at least Fabrikant [0029] "...the geographic confines of a city may be categorized into a rectangular grid of geographic region buckets. Each localized segment is then estimated as belonging to one or more of these geographic region buckets."]
As per claim 15, the combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Fabrikant discloses … wherein the at least one processor is comprised in at least one of:
… a system for rendering graphical output [see at least Fabrikant [0077] "…a display with one or more processors…"; [0082] "...An output device 662 can include audio or visual outputs such as speakers or displays for indicating semantic place identifiers or other data and/or place model outputs including semantic place boundary estimates, hierarchical clustering data structures, related maps and the like.... ."]
As per claim 16, Fabrikant discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors to generate a reconstruction of at least a portion of an environment using selected tracks of data, … , the buckets determined based at least on clustering of similar track segments in the tracks of data [see at least Fabrikant [0030] "Once all localized segments are estimated into respective geographic region buckets, various processing features are implemented for each region bucket. Initially, in each geographic region bucket, one or more clustering canopies can be identified, where a clustering canopy constitutes a group of localized segments in the given region bucket that satisfy a potential geographic overlap characterization."; [0059] "FIG. 7 provides a graphical representation of an example data structure 540 generated using hierarchical clustering applied to the localized segments from FIG. 6."]
Fabrikant fails to disclose … the tracks of data selected such that a number of track segments selected for each of a plurality of buckets for the portion of the environment is between a minimum track threshold and a maximum track threshold... . However, Beaurepaire discloses this limitation [See at least Beaurepaire [0043] "… If the number of samples is below the threshold, the confidence can decrease monotonically with the number of samples to 0% confidence where no samples are available."; [0055] "...instead of averaging the two determined values, other functions may be used to aggregate the two determined values, such as but not limited to the maximum (max), minimum (min),... ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Fabrikant to use … the tracks of data selected such that a number of track segments selected for each of a plurality of buckets for the portion of the environment is between a minimum track threshold and a maximum track threshold ... as disclosed in Beaurepaire with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of allowing a user to weigh the potential benefits of following a route with a lower confidence against the uncertainty of that route. [See at least Beaurepaire [0044].]
As per claim 17, the combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16.
Fabrikant discloses … wherein selecting a track for a first bucket causes the track to be selected for other buckets associated with the track [see at least Fabrikant [0032] "Once the clustering techniques are used to associate various localized segments together in a data structure, additional aspects of the disclosed technology concern a corresponding determination of semantic place data to selected correlated segments. In the generated data structure, various types of semantic place data for one or more localized segments in each geographic region bucket can be associated with one or more nodes in the hierarchical clustering configuration. In one example, one or more localized segments that are associated with semantic place data can be used to associate other nodes in the data structure with the semantic place data of one or more given segments based in at least in part on the data structure.... ."]
Fabrikant fails to disclose … if the number of track segments for the other buckets is below the maximum track threshold. However, Beaurepaire teaches this limitation [see at least Beaurepaire [0043] "...If the number of samples is below the threshold, the confidence can decrease monotonically with the number of samples to 0% confidence where no samples are available."; [0055] "...instead of averaging the two determined values, other functions may be used to aggregate the two determined values, such as but not limited to the maximum (max), minimum (min),... ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Fabrikant to use … if the number of track segments for the other buckets is below the maximum track threshold as disclosed in Beaurepaire with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of allowing a user to weigh the potential benefits of following a route with a lower confidence against the uncertainty of that route. [See at least Beaurepaire [0044].]
As per claim 18, the combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16.
Fabrikant discloses … wherein the clustering is determined based on a grid-based representation of the region or an inferred topology graph [see at least Fabrikant [0029] "...the geographic confines of a city may be categorized into a rectangular grid of geographic region buckets. Each localized segment is then estimated as belonging to one or more of these geographic region buckets."]
As per claim 20, the combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16.
Fabrikant discloses … wherein the system comprises at least one of:
… a system for rendering graphical output [see at least Fabrikant [0077] "…a display with one or more processors…"; [0082] "...An output device 662 can include audio or visual outputs such as speakers or displays for indicating semantic place identifiers or other data and/or place model outputs including semantic place boundary estimates, hierarchical clustering data structures, related maps and the like.... ."]
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabrikant, in view of Beaurepaire, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Vaquero Gonzalez , et al. (Publication US 2018/0011945 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Vaquero Gonzalez”.)
As per claim 12, the combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Fabrikant discloses … wherein the processing circuitry is further [configured] to:
determine the set of clustered track segments … [see at least Fabrikant [0030] "Once all localized segments are estimated into respective geographic region buckets, various processing features are implemented for each region bucket. Initially, in each geographic region bucket, one or more clustering canopies can be identified, where a clustering canopy constitutes a group of localized segments in the given region bucket that satisfy a potential geographic overlap characterization."]
Fabrikant fails to disclose … using an inferred topology graph. However, Vaquero Gonzalez teaches this limitation [see at least Vaquero Gonzalez [0016] "The disclosed technical solution relies on inferring a graph topology by dynamically inspecting the database schema without making any assumption on the structure of the tables of the database. Graph topologies can also be inferred by applying the solution described in the present disclosure. The disclosed solution utilizes edge attributes as they require users to indicate the mapping between a table column and an edge attribute."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire to use … using an inferred topology graph as disclosed in Vaquero Gonzalez with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of displaying data based on the processing of unclassified data. [See at least Vaquero Gonzalez [0016].]
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabrikant, in view of Beaurepaire, as applied to claims 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Ma.
As per claim 13, the combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
The combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire fails to disclose … wherein the processing circuitry is further [configured] to: perform clustering of the track segments according to at least one of lateral proximity, altitude, orientation, direction, or angular difference. However, Ma teaches this limitation [see at least Ma [0069] "...the first apparatus 102 is configured to group together probe data comprising vehicle trajectories which have common heading angles at respective points of entry to and exit from the road intersection 212."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire to use … wherein the processing circuitry is further [configured] to: perform clustering of the track segments according to at least one of lateral proximity, altitude, orientation, direction, or angular difference as disclosed in Ma with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved navigation that provides more detailed information about road networks. [See at least Ma [0003].]
As per claim 19, the combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16.
The combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire fails to disclose … wherein clustering of similar track segments is determined according to at least one of lateral proximity, altitude, orientation, direction, or angular difference. However, Ma teaches this limitation [see at least Ma [0069] "...the first apparatus 102 is configured to group together probe data comprising vehicle trajectories which have common heading angles at respective points of entry to and exit from the road intersection 212."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Fabrikant and Beaurepaire to use … wherein clustering of similar track segments is determined according to at least one of lateral proximity, altitude, orientation, direction, or angular difference as disclosed in Ma with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved navigation that provides more detailed information about road networks. [See at least Ma [0003].]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668