DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication filed on June 14th 2024. Claims 1-8 are pending.
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 .
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 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 10 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process (method) 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).
With respect to claim 1
A map generation apparatus comprising:
an in-vehicle detector configured to detect an external situation around a subject vehicle; and
a microprocessor and a memory coupled to the microprocessor, wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform:
recognizing an exterior environment situation around a subject vehicle by using a detection data of the in-vehicle detector;
generating a map including position information indicating a position of a predetermined feature based on recognition information acquired in the recognizing;
calculating a reliability of the map generated in the generating, for each piece of position information;
storing the map and reliability information indicating the reliability as map information; and
updating, when at least a part of a new map newly generated in the generating is included in the existing map stored in the memory unit as the map information, data of a corresponding section of the existing map corresponding to a generation section of the new map based on data and the reliability of the new map in the generation section and data and the reliability of the existing map in the corresponding section.
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The steps of "recognizing" an environment, "calculating" reliability, and "updating" a map based on that reliability are fundamental acts of judgment and observation that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a human driver recognizes a new landmark, mentally assesses how reliable their memory of the old map is, and "updates" their internal mental map accordingly. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding the use of the data in controlling the vehicle in a specific manner.
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.
With respect to claim 1
A map generation apparatus comprising:
an in-vehicle detector configured to detect an external situation around a subject vehicle; and
a microprocessor and a memory coupled to the microprocessor, wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform:
recognizing an exterior environment situation around a subject vehicle by using a detection data of the in-vehicle detector;
generating a map including position information indicating a position of a predetermined feature based on recognition information acquired in the recognizing;
calculating a reliability of the map generated in the generating, for each piece of position information;
storing the map and reliability information indicating the reliability as map information; and
updating, when at least a part of a new map newly generated in the generating is included in the existing map stored in the memory unit as the map information, data of a corresponding section of the existing map corresponding to a generation section of the new map based on data and the reliability of the new map in the generation section and data and the reliability of the existing map in the corresponding section.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The "in-vehicle detector," "microprocessor," and "memory" are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions of sensing, processing, and storing.
Also, while the claimed method may reduce the amount of data that has to be transmitted, this does not constitute an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Also, as noted above, 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 of storing and updating are 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.
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. Using a microprocessor and memory to automate the data-updating process is a "well-understood, routine, and conventional" activity in the field of digital mapping.
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 10 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (US 2023/0027195).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a map generation apparatus comprising:
an in-vehicle detector configured to detect an external situation around a subject
vehicle (Para. [0025]… The camera 11, which is an example of an image capturing unit for capturing the surroundings of the vehicle 2, includes a two-dimensional detector constructed from an array of optoelectronic transducers, such as CCD or C-MOS, having sensitivity to visible light and a focusing optical system that forms an image of a target region on the two-dimensional detector); and a microprocessor and a memory coupled to the microprocessor, wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform:
recognizing an exterior environment situation around a subject vehicle by using
a detection data of the in-vehicle detector (Para. [0033-0035]… the processor 23 inputs an image received from the camera 11 into a classifier that has been trained to detect a detection target feature, thereby detecting the feature represented in the inputted image…);
generating a map including position information indicating a position of a
predetermined feature based on recognition information acquired in the recognizing (Para. [0036]… The processor 23 includes, in feature data, the latitude and longitude indicating the position of the feature represented in the feature data as information indicating the
position of the feature represented in the feature data. Additionally, the processor 23 refers to the road map to identify a link that is a road section including the position of the feature represented in the feature data or a road section closest to this position);
calculating a reliability of the map generated in the generating, for each piece of
position information (Para. [0052]… for each feature represented in the map and located in the collection target region including the position of the feature represented in the
feature data, the update unit 43 calculates the distance from the position where the reliability of the feature represented in the map is highest…);
storing the map and reliability information indicating the reliability as map
information (Para. [0043]…the storage device 32 stores a map to be generated or
updated, the reliability distributions of the positions of features represented in the map, and the identifying information of each vehicle) ; and
updating, when at least a part of a new map newly generated in the generating is
included in the existing map stored in the memory unit as the map information, data of a
corresponding section of the existing map corresponding to a generation section of the
new map based on data and the reliability of the new map in the generation section and
data and the reliability of the existing map in the corresponding section (Para. [0052-0055]…the update unit 43 associates the feature represented in the received feature data with one of the features represented in the map. Specifically, for each feature represented
in the map and located in the collection target region including the position of the feature represented in the feature data, the update unit 43 calculates the distance from the position where the reliability of the feature represented in the map is highest, i.e., the position of the average of the reliability distribution, to the position of the feature represented in the feature data)
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform the calculating including setting at least one of a position coordinate of the subject vehicle in the map information (Para. [0037]…the processor 23 may include, in the feature data, the position and the travel direction of the vehicle 2 at the time of generation of the feature data, which are used for estimating the position of the feature, as well as the intensity of received GPS signals used for determining the position of the vehicle ), a number of samples of the recognition information acquired in the recognizing (Para. [0032]… the processor 23 executes the process related to generation of feature data at predetermined intervals ( e.g., 0.1 to 10 seconds) during travel of the vehicle) and the position information of travel lanes recognized in the recognizing as a parameter (Para. [0034]…for each type of detection target feature ( e.g., a lane-dividing line, a pedestrian crossing, and a stop line), the classifier calculates a confidence score indicating how likely the feature is represented in a region in the input image), and calculating an estimated value distribution of the position information of the feature as the reliability information based on the parameter (Para. [0050]…the update unit 43 updates the reliability distribution of the position of each feature in the collection target region, based on the position of the feature indicated by each of one or more pieces of received feature data. The update unit 43 may execute an update process described below whenever receiving feature data or two or more predetermined number of pieces of feature data.)
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform the calculating including calculating the estimated value distribution in the generation section when the new map is generated (Para. [0054]… The update unit 43 then approximates the reliability of each division with a normal distribution to calculate an updated reliability distribution of the position of the feature), and calculating the estimated value distribution in the corresponding section when the existing map is updated (Para. [0054]), and
the updating including updating the position information of the existing map by
fusing the existing map in the corresponding section and the new map in the generation
section with the data of the map having smaller variance between the estimated value
distribution calculated in the corresponding section of the existing map and the estimated value distribution calculated in the generation section of the new map prioritized (Para. [0059]… the positional reliability distribution is defined by an average position and a variance covariance matrix when the positional reliability distribution is expressed as a normal distribution. The higher the reliability at the average position or the smaller the values of the elements of the variance-covariance matrix, the smaller the extent of the reliability distribution. Additionally, the smaller the extent of the reliability distribution, the more accurately
the position of the feature is determined.)
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform the calculating including setting a weight for data of the existing map and the new map based on at least one of the position information of the travel lanes recognized in the recognizing (Para. [0070]… when updating the reliability distribution by maximum likelihood estimation, the update unit 43 uses weighted positions obtained by multiplying the positions of a feature indicated by individual feature data by a weighting factor for the maximum likelihood estimation), the recognition result in the recognizing (Para. [0034-0035]), a frequency of update of the existing map (Para. [0047]… the collection instruction unit 41 may set a region where a predetermined period has elapsed since the last update as a collection target region), a presence or absence of a past travel history, and a travel frequency (Para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform the recognizing including recognizing the exterior environment situation at a predetermined frame rate (Para. [0025]…the camera 11 captures a region in front of the vehicle 2 every predetermined capturing period), and
generates images of this region), and the calculating including, when calculating the reliability of the new map, calculating the reliability of the new map for each piece of position information of the same feature recognized in each of a plurality of frames with close acquisition times (Para. [0035]… the processor 23 associates object regions representing the same feature in two images obtained at different timings with each other, using optical flow. The processor 23 can estimate the position of the feature by triangulation, based on the positions and the travel directions of the vehicle 2 at the times of acquisition of the two images, the parameters of the camera 11, and the positions of the object regions in the respective images), and when calculating the reliability of the existing map, calculating the reliability of the existing map for each piece of position information of the same feature included in the existing map which has been updated (Para. [0052]) .
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2023/0027195) in view of Keidel et al. (US 2022/0101637) .
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 3, Keidel teaches further wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform the updating including, in a case where first position information of the feature in the generation section of the new map do not correspond to second position information of the feature in the corresponding section of the existing map, updating the position information of the existing map by fusing the existing map of the corresponding section and the new map of the generation section based on a map shape estimated from a polynomial approximation using the data of the new map in the generation section and the data of the existing map in the corresponding section (Keidel, Para. [0017]… first surrounding-area measurement data may be recorded by at least one camera and second surrounding-area measurement data may be provided by a map. On the basis of the surrounding-area measurement data recorded by the camera or ascertained from the map, it is possible in each case to ascertain a polynomial or a polynomial spline which respectively describes in approximation the course of a roadway in the surrounding area of the vehicle. The state function may in this case be adapted to the first surrounding-area measurement data and in addition to the second surrounding area measurement data.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for collecting feature date as taught by Tanaka with the method for multi-sensor data fusion for autonomous vehicle as taught by Keidel to provide a method for estimating the course of a roadway that ensures the highly available and precise determination of the course of a roadway (Keidel, Para. [0007])
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2023/0027195) in view of Urano et al. (US 2017/0122749).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 1, Urano teaches further comprising a sensor configured to detect presence or absence of an intervention in the driving operation, wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform the updating including, when at least a part of the new map is included in the existing map, determining whether there has been intervention in the driving operation in the generation section of the new map based on the detection data of the sensor, and when there has not been intervention in the driving operation, not updating the data of the corresponding section of the existing map corresponding to the generation section (Urano, Para. [0201]… the map update determination system 200 calculates the evaluation value of the traveling plan based on the number of the driver's intervention operations or the frequency of the driver's intervention operation as well as the result of the comparison between the control target value and the control result detection value. Accordingly, the map update determination system 200 may determine that the map information needs to be updated even in cases such as those illustrated in FIGS. 12A, 12B, 13A, and 13B, and thus, a more appropriate map information update determination may be performed.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the method for collecting feature date as taught by Tanaka with the map update determination system as taught by Urano to improve an update method for a case where the map information becomes outdated due to topographic changes (in, for example, lane width and road curvature) attributable to construction works or the like (Urano, Para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 1, Urano teaches further comprising an actuator for traveling (Urano, Fig. 1, actuator 6), wherein generating a travel trajectory for the subject vehicle based on the recognized position of the subject vehicle and the external situation around the subject vehicle detected by the in-vehicle detector (Urano, Para. [0091]…the traveling plan generation unit 14 generates the traveling plan of the vehicle M based on the target route R set by the navigation system 5 and the map information of the map database 4) , and controlling the actuator so that the subject vehicle travels automatically along the target path (Urano, Para. [0101]…the traveling control unit 15 carries out the automatic driving control for the vehicle M by controlling an output of the actuator 6 ( such as the driving force, the braking force, and the steering torque) with the command control value.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the method for collecting feature date as taught by Tanaka with the map update determination system as taught by Urano to improve an update method for a case where the map information becomes outdated due to topographic changes (in, for example, lane width and road curvature) attributable to construction works or the like (Urano, Para. [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI M JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/JODI JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666