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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Specifically, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for claims 6, 9-11, and 13-20 is withdrawn, and new claim 22 is not rejected as ineligible, because these claims integrate into practical application by utilizing the improvement to technology to actually improve the technology. That is, independent claims 9 and 19 recite limitations such as “release the first lock,” “revert, in a database storing the map, the one or more first portions of the map,” and “refraining from obtaining the one or more second locks.” Similarly, dependent claims 6 and 22 recite “causing…the one or more first portions of the map to switch” and “releasing the one or more first locks.”
However, the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection is maintained for claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8, and newly added claims 21 and 23 are likewise rejected as ineligible.
Applicant argues: “Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection and submits that the pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea. However, solely in the interest of advancing prosecution, Applicant herein amends independent claims 1, 9, and 19. Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 9, and 19 are not directed to an abstract idea and even assuming arguendo they are, amended independent claims 1, 9, and 19 include significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
For instance, Applicant respectfully asserts that independent claims 1, 9, and 19 are similar to Claim 3 from Example 47 from the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (referred to as "the Guidelines") provided by the Office, which the Office indicates as being eligible. For instance, in Example 47, the Guidelines indicate that "consideration of whether the claim as a whole includes an improvement to a computer or to a technology field requires an evaluation of the specification and the claim to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the improvement." Additionally, the Guidelines indicate that "According to the background section, existing systems use various detection techniques for detecting potentially malicious network packets and can alert a network administer to potential problems." Furthermore, the Guidelines indicate that the "disclosed system detects network intrusions and takes real-time remedial actions, including dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses." As such, the Guidelines indicate that the "additional elements in steps (d)-(f), when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field."
In other words, the Guidelines indicate that Claim 3 of Example 47 is eligible because claims that integrate the abstract idea (like Al algorithms) into a practical application are considered eligible. Similar to Claim 3 from Example 47, the claimed invention is not directed to the mere alleged abstract idea of a "mental process," but instead integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
For instance, Applicant's Specification explains that mapping systems may rely on "fleets of distributed, automated systems to produce new content and make automatic updates to the maps." Specification, [0002]. The Specification further explains that those systems "may operate in parallel" and "update large sections of the maps concurrently as new data becomes available." Id. When multiple operations attempt to update the same map sections at the same time, "simultaneous but separate updates may result in a completely corrupted map state." Id. Such corruption may lead to "driving disconnects, driving errors, passenger discomfort or unease, and/or any other adverse events." Id.
The Specification explains that the disclosed systems address this technological problem using "geometric-based, mutual exclusion locks to enforce causal ordering for concurrent updates to map resources." Id., [0003]. In particular, the Specification describes "associating geometric region descriptions with active and/or requested locks for shared map resources." Id., [0004]. This arrangement enables the system to "automatically enforce causal ordering of hundreds-or even thousands-of concurrent updates to map resources without requiring manual scheduling or intervention." Id.
The Specification further describes evaluating a geometric description included in a requested lock "with geometric descriptions associated with any active locks." Id., [0030]. The system may also "evaluate the underlying geographic regions and/or map tiles corresponding to the geometric descriptions to determine if there is overlap and a lock is held." Id. The system may determine that second map resources "overlap with the first map resources based at least on the first and second geometric descriptions." Id., [0033]. Based on that determination, the system may "deny the second request of the second client to lock the second map resources." Id.
The Specification additionally describes a particular progress-guaranteeing recovery mechanism. The system may "set a timeout period and/or a deadline for the lock associated with the first map resources." Id., [0034]. The Specification explains that "[t]he deadline may be extendable by the first client upon request and/or automatically based on activity." Id. If the deadline expires before the first client completes the update and without extension, "the system(s) may force remove the lock on the first map resources and revert the first map resources to their latest state prior to the attempted update by the first client." Id. The Specification further explains that forced removal of an existing lock "may help avoid deadlocks to the resources and promote progress of updates." Id., [0075]. When a lock is force removed, "the resource(s) may be reverted to their most previous state prior to the lock." Id.
The Specification illustrates the resulting technological improvement in FIGS. 4A-5B. When overlapping updates are applied without an enforced causal ordering, the overlapping tiles may be left "potentially corrupt." Id., [0063]. In contrast, when causal ordering is enforced, "the map tiles 306 are all updated to the correct and intended state." Id. Similarly, when three overlapping updates are applied without causal ordering, the tiles may be left "in incorrect states and, potentially, corrupt." Id., [0064]. Enforcing causal ordering instead causes the tiles to be "updated to the correct and intended state." Id.
Consistent with the Specification, the amended independent claims do not merely compare geometric information or determine whether a period of time has elapsed. Rather, the claims use those determinations to control access to shared map resources, release a stale lock, and revert affected map portions to a state preceding an incomplete update. Amended independent claim 19 similarly requires management of concurrent map updates using geometric descriptions that define geographic regions associated with respective lock requests and withholding a second lock when the defined geographic regions overlap.
Thus, the amended claims do not merely recite organizing information, making a judgment, or performing a mental process. Instead, they recite a specific concurrency-control and recovery architecture for distributed map-update systems. As the Specification explains, the disclosed systems "automatically enforce causal ordering of hundreds-or even thousands-of concurrent updates to map resources without requiring manual scheduling or intervention." Specification, [0004]. The systems also ensure that update operations "make progress over time so that the shared map resources may continue to be updated as environmental changes take place." Id. These operations reduce adverse events attributable to "map resource corruption." Id.
Similar to Claim 3 of Example 47, the amended claims do not end with merely detecting or identifying a condition. In Example 47, the claimed system uses detected network information to perform concrete remedial operations, including dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses. Here, the claimed system likewise uses the results of geometric-conflict and timing determinations to perform concrete remedial operations, including withholding a conflicting lock, releasing a stale lock, and reverting affected map resources to a pre-update state. Accordingly, the claimed limitations, considered in combination, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves the functioning of a computer system and a technological field-namely, distributed map-resource concurrency control and autonomous-machine mapping systems.
Moreover, the claimed operations are not practically performable in the human mind. A person cannot mentally obtain or release enforceable software locks governing access by distributed clients, prevent those clients from concurrently modifying shared map resources, or revert map resources affected by an incomplete update to a prior stored state. The claims therefore cannot properly be reduced to mere observation, evaluation, or judgment.
Even assuming arguendo that an abstract idea is implicated, the amended claims recite significantly more than that alleged abstract idea. The ordered combination of geometric-region- based lock management, withholding of conflicting locks, expiration-based release of stale locks, and restoration of affected map resources to a pre-update state constitutes a specific technological implementation for preventing corruption and maintaining progress in a distributed map-update system.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with respect to claim 1 and its dependents (except claims 6 and 22).
First off, claim 1 recites a mental process equivalent to a person associating a locked region with its identifier, noticing that two regions overlap, checking if a threshold time period has passed, and determining whether to allow a second lock to proceed. As such, a person observing lock data can make determinations about whether to release or prevent a lock. The mere nominal recitation that the method is being executed by a computer does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. The claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual manipulation of the map data, but merely (mental) determinations of whether or not to lock map regions.
Applicant further argues that the claim comprises an improvement to technology. However, in order to improve the technology, the claim has to utilize the improvement (an improved locking procedure for map regions) to actually improve the technology (by locking, releasing, or otherwise manipulating the map data). Mere determination in and of itself is not a practical application of anything, and simply determining “whether to refrain from obtaining the one or more locks” is a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea which does not apply the abstract idea that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Further, simply determining whether to refrain from implementing a lock does not in itself improve the locking technology, and instead merely claims the idea of a solution rather than the solution itself. The claim has to reflect the improvement to technology.
Example 47, claim 3, does not change the result. That claim was described as eligible at Step 2A prong one because it contained steps that implemented the improvement to technology. The limitations (e)-(f) there recited data manipulation based on a mental process which integrated the mental process into practical application by “dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time; and blocking future traffic from the source address” (emphasis added). “These steps reflect the improvement described in the background.” July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples at 12-13.
In contrast, Applicant’s claim merely “determines” an improved outcome without applying it, and claim 1 is therefore ineligible.
The claims depending from claim 1 are likewise ineligible based on a similar rationale, with the exception of claims 6 and 22.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground 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 Objections
Claim 22 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 22 is missing a period at the end.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), 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:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
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
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
obtaining one or more first locks for a first client to apply one or more first updates to one or more first portions of a map of an environment;
associating, with the one or more first locks, one or more first geometric identifiers indicative of the one or more first portions of the map;
receiving, prior to releasing the one or more first locks, one or more second requests to obtain one or more second locks for one or more second clients to apply one or more second updates to one or more second portions of the map, the one or more second requests including one or more second geometric identifiers;
determining, based at least on an evaluation of the one or more first geometric identifiers and the one or more second geometric identifiers, that one or more first geographic regions defined by the one or more first geometric identifiers at least partially intersect one or more second geographic regions defined by the one or more second geometric identifiers; and
determining whether a threshold period of time has elapsed since the obtaining of the one or more first locks for the first client;
and determining, based at least on the one or more first geographic regions at least partially intersecting the one or more second geographic regions and whether the threshold period of time has elapsed, whether to refrain from obtaining the one or more second locks for the one or more second clients.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of associating a geometric identifier with a lock, determining that first and second geometric identifiers correspond, determining whether a threshold period of time has elapsed, and determining whether to refrain from obtaining a lock based on the previous determinations. This is equivalent to a person associating a locked region with its identifier, noticing that two regions overlap, checking if a threshold time period has passed, and determining whether to allow a second lock to proceed. 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). As such, a person observing lock data can make determinations about whether to release or prevent a lock. The mere nominal recitation that the method is being executed by a computer does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual use of the map data in controlling a vehicle in a specific manner. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element 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;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
obtaining one or more first locks for a first client to apply one or more first updates to one or more first portions of a map of an environment;
associating, with the one or more first locks, one or more first geometric identifiers indicative of the one or more first portions of the map;
receiving, prior to releasing the one or more first locks, one or more second requests to obtain one or more second locks for one or more second clients to apply one or more second updates to one or more second portions of the map, the one or more second requests including one or more second geometric identifiers;
determining, based at least on an evaluation of the one or more first geometric identifiers and the one or more second geometric identifiers, that one or more first geographic regions defined by the one or more first geometric identifiers at least partially intersect one or more second geographic regions defined by the one or more second geometric identifiers; and
determining whether a threshold period of time has elapsed since the obtaining of the one or more first locks for the first client;
and determining, based at least on the one or more first geographic regions at least partially intersecting the one or more second geographic regions and whether the threshold period of time has elapsed, whether to refrain from obtaining the one or more second locks for the one or more second clients.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps are (implicitly) performed by a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
The obtaining steps (i.e. obtaining one or more locks) and receiving steps recited in the claim are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the process steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, 21, and 23. The claims either add to the mental process (e.g. claims 2, 4-5, 7, 21, 23) or add post-solution activity (e.g. claim 8).
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 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US12196573 by Patton et al. (hereinafter “Patton”), further in view of US8732120 by Barreirinhas (hereinafter “Barreirinhas”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Patton teaches A method comprising: obtaining one or more first locks for a first client to apply one or more first updates to one or more first portions of a map of an environment; see for example column 8 lines 3-34, where a user can request to lock an area for the purpose of applying an update to a map. See also column 19 lines 16-31, describing obtaining a lock for a region of a map.
associating, with the one or more first locks, one or more first geometric identifiers indicative of the one or more first portions of the map; see for example column 3 line 61 through column 4 line 14, where the systems can divide locked regions based on geometry, such as a square region.
receiving, prior to releasing the one or more first locks, one or more second requests to obtain one or more second locks for one or more second clients to apply one or more second updates to one or more second portions of the map, the one or more second requests including one or more second geometric identifiers; see for example column 13, lines 6-49, where the system receives a second lock request from a user specifying a map region.
determining, based at least on an evaluation of the one or more first geometric identifiers and the one or more second geometric identifiers, that one or more first geographic regions defined by the one or more first geometric identifiers at least partially see again column 13, lines 6-49, where the system receives a second lock request from a user specifying a map region. See also column 19, lines 28-31, or similarly column 8, lines 62-67, where a user can lock a region or portion of a map.
and determining whether a threshold period of time has elapsed since the obtaining of the one or more first locks for the first client; see for example column 11, lines 27-33, where the lock may be granted for only a specific time period; see also column 9, lines 1-15, discussing revoking a lock after a predetermined time period.
and determining, based at least on the one or more first geographic regions at least partially . See again for example column 9, lines 1-15, discussing revoking a lock after a predetermined time period. See also again column 13, lines 6-49, where the system receives denies a second lock request from a second user due to another user already locking the area.
Patton does not explicitly teach determining if map portions intersect. Although Patton teaches locking regions of a map, such as squares, to prevent others from editing that region while it is locked, i.e. preventing conflicts, Patton does not explicitly teach determining if locked regions overlap or intersect.
However, Barreirinhas teaches a system that checks if map portions intersect. See for example column 4 line 63 through column 5 line 37, where the coordinate management structure checks if coordinates overlap for locking purposes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exclusive lock system of Patton with the overlap system of Barreirinhas with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to determine if regions locked by the first user intersect with a second user’s requested lock region, preventing conflicts.
Regarding claim 2, Patton teaches a method further comprising: receiving, prior to releasing the one or more first locks, one or more third requests to obtain one or more third locks for one or more third portions of the map that at least partially overlap the one or more first portions, wherein the releasing of the one or more first locks is further based at least on one or more lock priorities indicated in the one or more third requests. In addition to the paragraphs cited above, see for example column 8, lines 52-67, where locks are assigned on a hierarchical basis, and “a lock may be removed from a first user with a lower level of access, so that the first user is prevented from making or merging changes based on the lock, if a change is requested or if the lock is cancelled by another user with a higher level of access.”
Regarding claim 4, Patton teaches wherein the one or more first geometric identifiers comprise one or more geometric descriptions that corresponds to one or more geographic regions of the environment projected to the one or more first portions of the map. See for example column 3 line 61 through column 4 line 14, where the systems can divide locked regions based on geometry, such as a square region. See also column 19 lines 16-31, describing obtaining a lock for a region of a map.
Regarding claim 5, Patton teaches wherein the determining that the one or more first geometric identifiers correspond to the one or more second geometric identifiers comprises determining that at least one of the one or more second portions of the map . See for example column 3 line 61 through column 4 line 14, where the systems can divide locked regions based on geometry, such as a square region, as well as column 19 lines 16-31, describing obtaining a lock for a region of a map. See also column 11 line 50 through column 12 line 23, where the lock system acts to lock a portion of the map, e.g. within a radius, to prevent conflicts.
Patton does not explicitly teach determining if map portions overlap. Although Patton teaches locking regions of a map, such as squares, to prevent others from editing that region while it is locked, i.e. preventing conflicts, Patton does not explicitly teach determining if locked regions overlap.
However, Barreirinhas teaches a system that checks if map portions overlap. See for example column 4 line 63 through column 5 line 37, where the coordinate management structure checks if coordinates overlap for locking purposes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exclusive lock system of Patton with the overlap system of Barreirinhas with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to determine if regions locked by the first user intersect with a second user’s requested lock region, preventing conflicts.
Regarding claim 6, Patton teaches wherein the obtaining of the one or more first locks comprises causing, based at least on a first request received from the first client, the one or more first portions of the map to switch from being associated with a first state to being associated with a second state, the first state corresponding to an unlocked state and the second state corresponding to a locked state. See for example column 9 lines 1-41, where the system can lock or unlock a region.
Regarding claim 7, Patton teaches a method further comprising: establishing, based at least on the receiving of the one or more second requests to obtain the one or more second locks, the threshold period of time for the first client to unlock the one or more first locks, the threshold period of time being extendable based at least on activity of the first client; and releasing the one or more first locks based at least on a lapse of the threshold period of time. See again for example column 9, lines 1-15, discussing revoking a lock after a predetermined time period. See also again column 13, lines 6-49, where the system receives denies a second lock request from a second user due to another user already locking the area.
Regarding claim 8, Patton teaches a method further comprising sending an updated version of the map to one or more machines for use in operating in the environment, wherein the updated version of the map is generated based at least on the obtaining of the one or more first locks. See column 2 lines 14-32, column 4 lines 15-24, and particularly column 8 lines 31-34, where updated map data is provided to a vehicle.
Regarding independent claim 19, Patton teaches At least one processor comprising: processing circuitry to perform one or more planning or control operations associated with a machine using a map of an environment, see Figure 2 for system architecture, including map databases.
wherein one or more concurrent updates to the map are managed, at least, by obtaining one or more first locks for updating one or more first portions of the map based at least on one or more geometric descriptions included in a request for the one or more first locks, the one or more first geometric descriptions defining one or more first geographic regions; see for example column 3 line 61 through column 4 line 14, where the systems can divide locked regions based on geometry, such as a square region. In addition to the paragraphs cited above, see for example column 8, lines 52-67, where locks are assigned on a hierarchical basis, and “a lock may be removed from a first user with a lower level of access, so that the first user is prevented from making or merging changes based on the lock, if a change is requested or if the lock is cancelled by another user with a higher level of access.” See also column 19, lines 28-31, or similarly column 8, lines 62-67, where a user can lock a region or portion of a map.
determining, based at least on an evaluation of the one or more geometric descriptions and one or more second geometric descriptions included in a request for one or more second locks for one or more second portions of the map, that the one or more first geographic regions at least partially see again column 13, lines 6-49, where the system receives a second lock request from a user specifying a map region. See also column 19, lines 28-31, or similarly column 8, lines 62-67, where a user can lock a region or portion of a map.
and based at least on the determining, refraining from obtaining the one or more second locks for the one or more second portions of the map prior to releasing the one or more first locks. See again column 8, lines 52-67, where locks are assigned on a hierarchical basis. See also again column 13, lines 6-49, where the system receives denies a second lock request from a second user due to another user already locking the area.
Patton does not explicitly teach determining if map portions overlap. Although Patton teaches locking regions of a map, such as squares, to prevent others from editing that region while it is locked, i.e. preventing conflicts, Patton does not explicitly teach determining if locked regions overlap or intersect.
However, Barreirinhas teaches a system that checks if map portions overlap. See for example column 4 line 63 through column 5 line 37, where the coordinate management structure checks if coordinates overlap for locking purposes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exclusive lock system of Patton with the overlap system of Barreirinhas with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to determine if regions locked by the first user intersect with a second user’s requested lock region, preventing conflicts.
Regarding claim 20, Patton teaches wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for performing operations using one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for performing operations using one or more vision language models (VLMs); a system for performing operations using one or more multi-modal language models; a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. See column 2 lines 14-32, column 4 lines 15-24, and particularly column 8 lines 31-34, where updated map data is provided to a vehicle for navigation of the map. See also column 5 lines 30 through column 6 lines 28, where the map system can involve multiple database systems.
Regarding claim 21, Patton teaches wherein: the threshold period of time is established based at least on the receiving of the one or more second requests to obtain the one or more second locks, and the threshold period of time is extendable based at least on activity level of the first client. See again for example column 9, lines 1-15, discussing revoking a lock after a predetermined time period. See also column 11, lines 10-33, where the time period for revoking (or not revoking) a lock is based on the user’s performing certain actions. See also column 8, lines 54-61, where users can receive preferential lock treatment, such that a second user with higher authority can take a lock from a lower authority user when requested.
Claims 9-12, 14, 16-18, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patton in view of Barreirinhas, and further in view of US20130325827 by Markus et al. (hereinafter “Markus”).
Regarding independent claim 9, Patton teaches A system comprising: one or more processors to: obtain a first lock for a first client to apply one or more first updates to one or more first portions of a map of an environment; see for example column 8 lines 3-34, where a user can request to lock an area for the purpose of applying an update to a map. See also column 19 lines 16-31, describing obtaining a lock for a region of a map.
associate, with the first lock, a priority and a geometric identifier corresponding to the one or more first portions of the map; see for example column 3 line 61 through column 4 line 14, where the systems can divide locked regions based on geometry, such as a square region. In addition to the paragraphs cited above, see for example column 8, lines 52-67, where locks are assigned on a hierarchical basis, and “a lock may be removed from a first user with a lower level of access, so that the first user is prevented from making or merging changes based on the lock, if a change is requested or if the lock is cancelled by another user with a higher level of access.”
determine, based at least on the priority and the geometric identifier, to refrain from obtaining, prior to releasing the first lock, one or more second locks for one or more second portions of the map that at least partially see again column 8, lines 52-67, where locks are assigned on a hierarchical basis. See also again column 13, lines 6-49, where the system receives denies a second lock request from a second user due to another user already locking the area.
and responsive to a determination that a threshold period of time associated with the first lock has elapsed: release the first lock; in addition to the paragraphs cited above, see for example column 8, lines 52-67, where locks are assigned on a hierarchical basis, and “a lock may be removed from a first user with a lower level of access, so that the first user is prevented from making or merging changes based on the lock, if a change is requested or if the lock is cancelled by another user with a higher level of access.” See also column 11, lines 27-33, where the lock may be granted for only a specific time period, as well as column 9, lines 1-15, discussing revoking a lock after a predetermined time period.
Patton does not explicitly teach determining if map portions overlap. Although Patton teaches locking regions of a map, such as squares, to prevent others from editing that region while it is locked, i.e. preventing conflicts, Patton does not explicitly teach determining if locked regions overlap.
However, Barreirinhas teaches a system that checks if map portions overlap. See for example column 4 line 63 through column 5 line 37, where the coordinate management structure checks if coordinates overlap for locking purposes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exclusive lock system of Patton with the overlap system of Barreirinhas with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to determine if regions locked by the first user intersect with a second user’s requested lock region, preventing conflicts.
Neither Patton nor Barreirinhas explicitly teach that the system should revert, in a database storing the map, the one or more first portions of the map from a state resulting from at least a portion of the one or more first updates to a latest state preceding the one or more first updates.
However, Markus suggests that a system should revert, in a database storing the map, the one or more first portions of the map from a state resulting from at least a portion of the one or more first updates to a latest state preceding the one or more first updates. See for example paragraph [0051], where after a lock timeout period expires, the system rolls back the value to the previous state and releases the lock.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exclusive lock system of Patton, modified by the overlap system of Barreirinhas, with the rollback system of Markus with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to ensure that the map region does not become corrupted by incomplete data uploads.
Regarding claim 10, Patton does not explicitly teach the one or more processors further to: add, to a queue, data indicating one or more requests for the one or more second locks; and ordering, in the queue, the data indicating the one or more requests based at least on one or more of: one or more priorities associated with the one or more requests; an order in which the one or more requests were received; or one or more requested times for issuing the one or more second locks. Although Patton suggests ordering events and locks based on their associated timestamps (column 20, lines 4-14), Patton does not explicitly teach queueing the locks based on the timestamps.
However, Barreirinhas teaches the one or more processors further to: add, to a queue, data indicating one or more requests for the one or more second locks; and ordering, in the queue, the data indicating the one or more requests based at least on one or more of: one or more priorities associated with the one or more requests; an order in which the one or more requests were received; or one or more requested times for issuing the one or more second locks. See for example column 8, lines 20-28, where lock requests can be queued.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exclusive lock system of Patton with the overlap system of Barreirinhas with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to determine if regions locked by the first user intersect with a second user’s requested lock region, preventing conflicts.
Regarding claim 11, Patton teaches the one or more processors further to: release the first lock based at least on a second priority associated with at least one of the one or more second locks exceeding the priority associated with the first lock; and obtain the at least one of the one or more second locks subsequent to the release of the first lock. See for example column 3 line 61 through column 4 line 14, where the systems can divide locked regions based on geometry, such as a square region. In addition to the paragraphs cited above, see for example column 8, lines 52-67, where locks are assigned on a hierarchical basis, and “a lock may be removed from a first user with a lower level of access, so that the first user is prevented from making or merging changes based on the lock, if a change is requested or If the lock is cancelled by another user with a higher level of access.”
Regarding claim 13, Patton teaches the one or more processors further to: release the first lock based at least on the first client unlocking the first lock; and sending, to one or more machines, an updated version of the map of the environment, wherein the one or more machines use the updated version of the map to traverse one or more regions of the environment corresponding to the one or more first portions of the map. See column 2 lines 14-32, column 4 lines 15-24, and particularly column 8 lines 31-34, where updated map data is provided to a vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, Patton teaches wherein the geometric identifier is a geometric description that corresponds to one or more geographic regions of the environment projected to the one or more first portions of the map. See for example column 3 line 61 through column 4 line 14, where the systems can divide locked regions based on geometry, such as a square region. See also column 19 lines 16-31, describing obtaining a lock for a region of a map.
Regarding claim 16, Patton teaches the one or more processors further to: obtain, from one or more second clients, data indicating one or more requests for the one or more second locks and one or more second geometric identifiers corresponding to the one or more second portions of the map, wherein the determination to refrain from obtaining the one or more second locks is further based at least on an evaluation of the one or more second geometric identifiers with respect to the geometric identifier associated with the first lock. See for example column 3 line 61 through column 4 line 14, where the systems can divide locked regions based on geometry, such as a square region, as well as column 19 lines 16-31, describing obtaining a lock for a region of a map. See also column 11 line 50 through column 12 line 23, where the lock system acts to lock a portion of the map, e.g. within a radius, to prevent conflicts.
Regarding claim 17, Patton does not explicitly teach the one or more processors further to: add, to a queue, data indicating at least one of the one or more second locks requested by a second client; release the first lock; and obtain the at least one of the one or more second locks subsequent to the release of the first lock based at least on the addition of the data to the queue. Although Patton suggests ordering events and locks based on their associated timestamps (column 20, lines 4-14), Patton does not explicitly teach queueing the locks based on the timestamps.
However, Barreirinhas teaches the one or more processors further to: add, to a queue, data indicating at least one of the one or more second locks requested by a second client; release the first lock; and obtain the at least one of the one or more second locks subsequent to the release of the first lock based at least on the addition of the data to the queue. See for example column 8, lines 20-28, where lock requests can be queued.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exclusive lock system of Patton with the overlap system of Barreirinhas with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to determine if regions locked by the first user intersect with a second user’s requested lock region, preventing conflicts.
Regarding claim 18, Patton teaches wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for performing operations using one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for performing operations using one or more vision language models (VLMs); a system for performing operations using one or more multi-modal language models; a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. See column 2 lines 14-32, column 4 lines 15-24, and particularly column 8 lines 31-34, where updated map data is provided to a vehicle for navigation of the map. See also column 5 lines 30 through column 6 lines 28, where the map system can involve multiple database systems.
Regarding claim 22, Patton teaches further comprising: responsive to determining that the one or more first geometric regions at least partially and that the threshold period of time has elapsed since the obtaining of the one or more first locks: releasing the one or more first locks; in addition to the paragraphs cited above, see for example column 8, lines 52-67, where locks are assigned on a hierarchical basis, and “a lock may be removed from a first user with a lower level of access, so that the first user is prevented from making or merging changes based on the lock, if a change is requested or if the lock is cancelled by another user with a higher level of access.” See also column 11, lines 27-33, where the lock may be granted for only a specific time period, as well as column 9, lines 1-15, discussing revoking a lock after a predetermined time period.
.
Patton does not explicitly teach determining if map portions intersect. Although Patton teaches locking regions of a map, such as squares, to prevent others from editing that region while it is locked, i.e. preventing conflicts, Patton does not explicitly teach determining if locked regions overlap.
However, Barreirinhas teaches a system that checks if map portions intersect. See for example column 4 line 63 through column 5 line 37, where the coordinate management structure checks if coordinates overlap for locking purposes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exclusive lock system of Patton with the overlap system of Barreirinhas with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to determine if regions locked by the first user intersect with a second user’s requested lock region, preventing conflicts.
Patton does not explicitly teach that a process includes reverting, in a database storing the map, the one or more first portions of the map from a state resulting from at least a portion of the one or more first updates to a latest state preceding the one or more first updates.
However, Markus suggests that a process includes reverting, in a database storing the map, the one or more first portions of the map from a state resulting from at least a portion of the one or more first updates to a latest state preceding the one or more first updates. See for example paragraph [0051], where after a lock timeout period expires, the system rolls back the value to the previous state and releases the lock.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exclusive lock system of Patton, modified by the overlap system of Barreirinhas, with the rollback system of Markus with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to ensure that the map region does not become corrupted by incomplete data uploads.
Regarding claim 23, Patton teaches the one or more processors further to: monitor activity associated with the first client; and extend the threshold period of time based at least on detecting that an activity level associated with the first client meets or exceeds a threshold. See again for example column 9, lines 1-15, discussing revoking a lock after a predetermined time period. See also column 11, lines 10-33, where the time period for revoking (or not revoking) a lock is based on the user’s performing certain actions. See also column 8, lines 54-61, where users can receive preferential lock treatment, such that a second user with higher authority can take a lock from a lower authority user when requested.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patton in view of Barreirinhas and Markus as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US2017/0308565 by Broll et al. (hereinafter “Broll”).
Regarding claim 15, Patton teaches wherein: the first lock comprises one or more first mutual exclusions (. See again column 13, lines 6-49, where the system receives denies a second lock request from a second user due to another user already locking the area, preventing any changes to the map (reading on mutual exclusions).
Patton does not explicitly teach a mutex.
However, Broll teaches a lock system involving a mutex. See for example paragraph [0013] describing an exclusive lock, or mutex, for governing concurrent database operation.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exclusive lock system of Patton, modified by the overlap system of Barreirinhas and the rollback system of Markus, with the mutex system of Broll with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to use conventional data science tools for database management, preventing inadvertent data overwrites due to concurrent updates.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights