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 .
Introduction
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-7, 12-13, and 16-26 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed May 15, 2024 and May 15, 2025 have been received and considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0046, "an updated map in the server may be sent the vehicle" should read "an updated map in the server may be sent to the vehicle".
In paragraph 0051, it states that Fig. 2 is to determine target vehicles in an abnormal driving state, however it is unclear if it is referring to further detail of Fig. 1 or a continuation of the steps.
In paragraph 0060, "the candidate vehicle is a target road" does not make sense.
In paragraph 0062, "the target vehicles is acquired" should read "the target vehicle is acquired".
In paragraph 0062, it is unclear if the “road trajectory” is referring to the shape of a road or direction of the road.
In paragraph 0063, it states that Fig. 3 is to update the map, however it is unclear if it is referring to further detail of a previous step in Figs. 1 and 2 or a continuation of the steps.
In paragraph 0112, “on the target road when existing the autonomous driving mode” should read “on the target road when exiting the autonomous driving mode”.
It is unclear if the road anomaly in paragraph 0077 is the same as a trigger condition in paragraph 0095 as they both cause a vehicle to exit an autonomous driving mode.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 17, and 23 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 2, claim 17, line 2, and claim 23, line 2, “location points of the target vehicles on the target road when existing the autonomous driving mode” should read location points of the target vehicles on the target road when exiting the autonomous driving mode” .
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.
Claims 1-7, 12-13, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 5, claim 12, line 12, and claim 13, line 8, the limitation “each location point” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis and is unclear if each location point is included in the driving data that was acquired (claim 1, line 3, claim 12, line 9, and claim 13, line 6). In paragraph 0112 of the specification, it says that the location parts are part of the data.
In claim 1, lines 7-8, claim 12, lines 14-15, and claim 13, lines 10-11, the limitation “allowed to enter the autonomous driving mode” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is saying that a passing vehicle can begin autonomous driving at the location or enter the location in an autonomous driving mode.
In claim 2, lines 3-4, claim 16, lines 2-3, and claim 22, lines 3-4, the limitation “a road network” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the road network includes the target road of claim 1 (line 2), claim 12 (lines 7-8), or claim 13 (line 5). The specification repeats the language of the claim in paragraph 0103 and provides no further detail on how the road network and target road are related.
In claim 2, line 6, claim 16, line 5, and claim 22, line 6, the limitation “a target vehicle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if a single target vehicle or multiple target vehicles (claim 1, line 2, and claim 2, line 1, claim 12, line 7, or claim 13, line 5, and claim 22, line 1) are being determined.
In claim 3, line 2, claim 17, lines 1-2, and claim 23, line 2, the limitation “location points of the target vehicles” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if these are the same as the location points of the target road in claim 1 (lines 5-6), claim 12 (lines 12-13), or claim 13 (lines 8-9). Paragraph 0095 states that the location points of the target vehicles are on the target road and there is no reference to location points of the target road.
In claim 3, line 5, claim 17, line 5, and claim 23, line 5, the limitation “target vehicles” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if these are the same target vehicles from claim 1 (line 2), claim 12 (line 7), claim 13 (line 5) or new ones.
In claim 3, line 5, claim 17, line 5, and claim 23, line 5, the limitation “a same position” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same as the location points from claim 3 (line 2), claim 17 (lines 1-2), or claim 23 (line 2), claim 1 (line 5), claim 12 (line 12 ), or claim 13 (line 8), both, or a new one.
In claim 3, line 5, claim 17, line 5, and claim 23, line 5, the limitation “a same trigger condition” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this trigger condition is the same trigger condition from claim 3 (line 3), claim 17 (line 3), or claim 23 (line 3), or a new one.
In claim 3, lines 5-6, claim 17, lines 5-6, and claim 23, lines 5-6, the limitation “a cluster” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same cluster from claim 1 (line 4), claim 12 (line 7), or claim 13 (line 11) or a new one.
In claim 3, line 6, claim 17, line 6, and claim 23, line 6, the limitation “driving data of each of the target vehicles” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same driving data from claim 1 (line 3), claim 12 (line 9), or claim 13 (line 6) or new data.
In claim 4, line 5, claim 18, line 2, and claim 24, line 4, the limitation “a cluster” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same cluster from claim 1 (line 4), claim 12 (line 11), or claim 13 (line 7), or a new one.
In claim 4, line 6, claim 18, line 3, and claim 24, line 5, the limitation “an autonomous driving enabling state” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same autonomous driving enabling state from claim 1 (line 5), claim 12 (line 12), or claim 13 (line 8) or a new one.
In claim 4, line 6, claim 18, line 3, and claim 24, line 5, the limitation “a location point” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same location point from claim 1 (line 6), claim 12 (line 12), or claim 13 (line 8) or a new one.
In claim 5, line 7, claim 19, line 5, and claim 25, line 7, the limitation “a set number” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same set number from claim 5 (line 4), claim 19 (line 2), or claim 25 (line 4), or a new one.
In claim 5, line 8, claim 19, line 6, and claim 25, line 8, the limitation “road state information” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the road state information is part of the driving data acquired in claim 1 (line 3), claim 12 (line 9), or claim 13 (line 6). Paragraph 0107 states that that the road state information includes road anomalies at a location point and paragraph 0112 states that the location points are part of the driving data. Therefore, the road state information is based on location points from the driving data.
In claim 6, line 6, claim 20, line 5, and claim 26, line 6, the limitation “a road anomaly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the road anomaly is the same road anomaly from claim 6 (line 3), claim 20 (line 2), or claim 26 (line 3), or a new one.
In claim 7, line 2, claim 21, line 2, and claim 26, line 10, the limitation “continuous target location points” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the points are one of the location points from claim 4 (lines 3-4), claim 18 (line 3), or claim 24 (line 5), or new points.
In claim 7, line 2, claim 21, line 2, and claim 26, line 10, the limitation “continuous target location points” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the target location points are continuous. Paragraph 0083 states the same language of the claim and provides no further detail.
In claim 7, line 2, claim 21, line 2, and claim 26, lines 10-11, the limitation “non-enabling location points” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if these points are one of the location points from claim 4 (lines 3-4), claim 18 (line 3), or claim 24 (line 5), or new points.
In claim 7, line 2, claim 21, line 2, and claim 26, lines 10-11, the limitation “non-enabling location points” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the non-enabling location points are being used. Paragraph 0083 states the same language of the claim and provides no further detail.
In claim 7, line 3, claim 21, line 3, and claim 26, lines 11-12, the limitation “the target location points” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if these points are the location points of the target road from claim 4 (lines 3-4), claim 18 (line 3), or claim 24 (line 5), continuous target location points from claim 7 (line 2), claim 21 (line 2), or claim 26 (line 10), or non-enabling location points from claim 7 (lines 3-4), claim 21 (line 2), or claim 26 (lines 10-11).
In claim 7, line 5, claim 21, line 4, and claim 26, line 13, the limitation “discontinuous location points” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if these points are the location points of the target road from claim 4 (lines 3-4), claim 18 (line 3), or claim 24 (line 5), or non-enabling location points from claim 7 (lines 3-4), claim 21 (line 2), or claim 26 (lines 10-11).
In claim 7, line 5, claim 21, line 4, and claim 26, line 13, the limitation “discontinuous location points” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the points are discontinuous. Paragraph 0087 states the same language of the claim and provides no further detail.
In claim 7, line 6, claim 21, line 5, and claim 26, line 14, the limitation “remaining locations” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if they are part of the location points of the target road from claim 4 (lines 3-4), claim 18 (line 3), or claim 24 (line 5), continuous target location points from claim 7 (line 2), claim 21 (line 2), or claim 26 (line 10), or non-enabling location points from claim 7 (lines 3-4), claim 21 (line 2), or claim 26 (lines 10-11).
In claim 7, line 6, claim 21, line 5, and claim 26, line 14, the limitation “remaining locations” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what these points are remaining from. Paragraph 0087 states the same language of the claim and provides no further detail.
In claim 7, line 6, claim 21, line 5, and claim 26, line 14, the limitation “an autonomous driving enabling state” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same driving enabling state from claim 4 (line 6) claim 18 (line 3), or claim 24 (line 5) or a new one.
In claim 7, lines 6-7, claim 21, lines 5-6, and claim 26, lines 14-15, the limitation “at least one location area” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same as the target road from claim 1 (line 2), claim 12 (lines 7-8), or claim 13 (line 5) or a new area.
Claims 2-7 and 16-26 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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 1-7, 12-13, and 16-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is taken as the representative claim.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for updating a map (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for updating a map, comprising:
determining target vehicles exiting an autonomous driving mode on a target road;
acquiring driving data of the target vehicles in a non-autonomous driving mode;
generating at least one cluster by clustering the driving data; and
updating an autonomous driving enabling state of each location point of the target road on the map according to the at least one cluster, wherein the autonomous driving enabling state is configured to indicate whether a passing vehicle is allowed to enter the autonomous driving mode at each location point.
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, “generating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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 method for updating a map, comprising:
determining target vehicles exiting an autonomous driving mode on a target road;
acquiring driving data of the target vehicles in a non-autonomous driving mode;
generating at least one cluster by clustering the driving data; and
updating an autonomous driving enabling state of each location point of the target road on the map according to the at least one cluster, wherein the autonomous driving enabling state is configured to indicate whether a passing vehicle is allowed to enter the autonomous driving mode at each location point.
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 of “determining…,” “acquiring…,” and “updating…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the determining and acquiring steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the updating step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of refreshing the evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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. see 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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional limitations of “determining…,” “acquiring…,” and “updating…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) 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 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-7 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Similar to claims 1-7, claims 12 and 16-21, and claims 13 and 22-26 are directed toward a mental process without a practical application or significantly more. These claims recite the same abstract idea as claims 1-7 merely implemented in a device or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, which does not add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 12-13, 17-21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US 2023/0017377).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13, Watanabe discloses a method, device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program for updating a map, comprising:
determining target vehicles exiting an autonomous driving mode on a target road (Watanabe, [0024] regarding the unavailability location determination unit 5a using surrounding-of-vehicle information to determine whether the area around the vehicle is an autonomous driving unavailable location, [0049] regarding the on-board deice switching from automatic driving to manual driving when autonomous driving is unavailable at that location & [0019] regarding the server communicating with a plurality of on-board devices);
acquiring driving data of the target vehicles in a non-autonomous driving mode (Watanabe, [0029] regarding transmitting the determination result of the unavailability location determination unit 5a and the reason for unavailability as unavailability notification information to the server);
generating at least one cluster by clustering the driving data (Watanabe, [0095] regarding the server updating information about autonomous driving locations based on a plurality of on-board devices); and
updating an autonomous driving enabling state of each location point of the target road on the map according to the at least one cluster, wherein the autonomous driving enabling state is configured to indicate whether a passing vehicle is allowed to enter the autonomous driving mode at each location point (Watanabe, [0098] regarding the server statistically processing the information received from each on-board device to set an autonomous driving unavailable location).
Regarding claims 3, 17, and 23, Watanabe discloses the method, device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program for updating a map as claimed in claim 1, 12, and 13. Watanabe further discloses wherein the driving data comprises location points of the target vehicles on the target road when existing the autonomous driving mode and trigger conditions for exiting the autonomous driving mode (Watanabe, [0029] regarding transmitting the determination result of the unavailability location determination unit 5a and the reason for unavailability as unavailability notification information to the server), wherein generating the at least one cluster by clustering the driving data comprises:
acquiring target vehicles at a same position and with a same trigger condition as a cluster by comparing driving data of each of the target vehicles (Watanabe, [0095] regarding the server updating information about autonomous driving locations using information transmitted from a plurality of on-board devices based on a degree of confidence of the determination results of the on-board devices).
Regarding claims 4, 18, and 24, Watanabe discloses the method, device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program for updating a map as claimed in claim 1, 12, and 13. Watanabe further discloses wherein updating the autonomous driving enabling state of each location point of the target road on the map according to the at least one cluster comprises:
acquiring a number of the target vehicles in a cluster; and
determining an autonomous driving enabling state of a location point corresponding to the cluster according to the number of the target vehicles (Watanabe, [0096] regarding the number of times the server received notification information transmitted from the on-board devices being used to update setting or cancellation of an autonomous driving unavailable location).
Regarding claims 5, 19, and 25, Watanabe discloses the method, device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program for updating a map as claimed in claim 4, 18, and 24. Watanabe further discloses wherein determining the autonomous driving enabling state of the location point corresponding to the cluster according to the number of the target vehicles comprises:
in response to the number of the target vehicles being greater than a set number, determining that the autonomous driving enabling state of the location point is a non- enabling state (Watanabe, [0096] regarding the number of times the server received notification information transmitted from the on-board devices being used to update setting or cancellation of an autonomous driving unavailable location); and
in response to the number of the target vehicles being less than a set number, acquiring road state information of the location point, and determining the autonomous driving enabling state of the location point based on a road state (Watanabe, [0026] regarding factors that may cause autonomous driving unavailable location include road construction, vehicles parked on the roadside, traffic congestion, traffic accidents, frozen road surfaces, snow on road surfaces, bad weather, paint rubbing on road surfaces, and driver's operations to disable automatic driving. If the threshold is not met then the server receives all of this information would be acquired until the threshold is met.).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Watanabe discloses the method and device for updating a map as claimed in claim 5 and 19. Watanabe further discloses wherein determining the autonomous driving enabling state of the location point based on the road state comprises:
in response to the road state information indicating that a road anomaly occurs on the location point, determining that the autonomous driving enabling state of the location point is the non-enabling state; and
in response to the road state information indicating that a road anomaly does not occur on the location point, determining that the autonomous driving enabling state of the location point is an enabling state (Watanabe, [0026] regarding factors that may cause autonomous driving unavailable location include road construction, vehicles parked on the roadside, traffic congestion, traffic accidents, frozen road surfaces, snow on road surfaces, bad weather, paint rubbing on road surfaces, and driver's operations to disable automatic driving. If one of these situations is not occurring then autonomous driving is available.).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, as best understood, Watanabe discloses the method and device for updating a map as claimed in claim 6 and 20. Watanabe further discloses identifying continuous target location points from non-enabling location points determined, and obtaining at least one location area by merging the target location points; and
generating map update information based on discontinuous location points on remaining locations and an autonomous driving enabling state of the at least one location area, and sending the map update information to a vehicle (Watanabe, [0035] regarding a map database that stores map data and autonomous driving availability information & the on-board device downloading the map data around its own vehicle's location from the server).
Regarding claim 26, Watanabe discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program for updating a map as claimed in claim 25. Watanabe further discloses wherein determining the autonomous driving enabling state of the location point based on the road state comprises:
in response to the road state information indicating that a road anomaly occurs on the location point, determining that the autonomous driving enabling state of the location point is the non-enabling state; and
in response to the road state information indicating that a road anomaly does not occur on the location point, determining that the autonomous driving enabling state of the location point is an enabling state (Watanabe, [0026] regarding factors that may cause autonomous driving unavailable location include road construction, vehicles parked on the roadside, traffic congestion, traffic accidents, frozen road surfaces, snow on road surfaces, bad weather, paint rubbing on road surfaces, and driver's operations to disable automatic driving. If one of these situations is not occurring then autonomous driving is available.),
wherein the method further comprises:
identifying continuous target location points from non-enabling location points determined, and obtaining at least one location area by merging the target location points; and
generating map update information based on discontinuous location points on remaining locations and an autonomous driving enabling state of the at least one location area, and sending the map update information to a vehicle (Watanabe, [0035] regarding a map database that stores map data and autonomous driving availability information & the on-board device downloading the map data around its own vehicle's location from the server).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Jiao (US 2019/0390972).
Regarding claims 2, 16, and 22, Watanabe discloses the method, device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program for updating a map as claimed in claim 1, 12, and 13. Watanabe further discloses wherein determining the target vehicles exiting the autonomous driving mode on the target road comprises:
acquiring a candidate vehicle exiting the autonomous driving mode traveling on a road network (Watanabe, [0024] regarding the unavailability location determination unit 5a using surrounding-of-vehicle information to determine whether the area around the vehicle is an autonomous driving unavailable location & [0049] regarding the on-board deice switching from automatic driving to manual driving when autonomous driving is unavailable at that location).
Watanabe does not disclose wherein determining the target vehicles exiting the autonomous driving mode on the target road comprises:
acquiring a driving trajectory of the candidate vehicle; and
determining a target vehicle by matching the driving trajectory with the target road.
Jiao teaches wherein determining the target vehicles exiting the autonomous driving mode on the target road comprises:
acquiring a driving trajectory of the candidate vehicle (Jiao, [0054] regarding determining the path of travel of a transportation vehicle); and
determining a target vehicle by matching the driving trajectory with the target road (Jiao, [0054] regarding comparing the path of travel of the transportation vehicle with road segments in the map databased).
Watanabe and Jiao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle location determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe to incorporate comparing a vehicle path with a map database, as disclosed by Jiao, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of having a secondary method of determining a vehicles location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665