DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 03/09/2026. Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11, and 15-18 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims “wherein the virtual map element is a first road or first intersection displayed on the first map and not defined by a tangible lane line”. The limitation “not defined by a tangible lane line” is a negative limitation. MPEP 2173.05(i) states that Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The same rational applies to claims 8 and 15.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above
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 1-20 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.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims “wherein the virtual map element is a first road or first intersection displayed on the first map and not defined by a tangible lane line”. The negative limitation “not defined by a tangible lane line” tends to define the invention in terms of what it was not, rather than pointing out the invention. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite because it was an attempt to claim the invention by excluding what the inventors did not invent rather than distinctly and particularly pointing out what they did invent rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “The virtual map element may be understood as a road or an intersection that is visible on a map but does not actually exist in a real operation scenario, for example, a road that is displayed on a map but is not marked by a lane line in a real operation scenario”. The same rational applies to claims 8 and 15.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) (claims 1, 8, and 15) recite(s) generating a message in response to an operation of a user and sending the message to a map server (claims 1 and 15) and receiving a message from a client instructing update to a road network topology and updating the road network topology (claim 8).
The limitations recited above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (claim 15). That is, other than reciting “a processor in claim 15” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, generating a message in response to an operation of a user and receiving a message from a client instructing update to a road network topology in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking that an update is required based on observation. Similarly, the limitation “updating the road network topology” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually updating a map using a pen and a paper. Accordingly, said limitations may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim (claim 15) recites an additional element, a processor, to perform the recited steps. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation “sending the message to a map server” (claims 1 and 15), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitation does not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner submits that said limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the “sending the message to a map server” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution output, 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 (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.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor (claim 15) to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “sending the message to a map server” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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. Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 comprise steps that would fall under the mental process as recited above. Claims 7 and 14 recite an additional element of receiving a second map. Said limitation is treated as insignificant extra-solution activity recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahara et al US 2008/0086262 A1 (provided by the applicant in IDS on 01/31/2025, hence Asahara) in view of Hou et al US 2020/0210717 A1 (hence Hou).
In re claims 1 and 15, Asahara discloses a data updating method for a map data distribution system (Abstract) and teaches the following:
generating a message in response to an operation of a user on a user interface (UI) (Paragraph 0045 “The navigation device 20, when instructed by a user to update the map of a specified area via the GUI part 111, request from the map distribution server 101 difference update data required for updating the specified area”), wherein the message comprises an instruction for a map server to update a road network topology structure of a first map (Fig.3, and Paragraph 0043 “a link data table “, and “data indicating a road between intersections”), wherein the road network topology structure comprises at least one of a position and orientation of a map element, a size of the map element (Fig.3, #303, and Paragraph 0043 “a field 303 to enter the width of the link”), or a topology relationship of the map element (Fig.3, #306, #307, and Paragraph 0043 “a field 306 to enter the node ID of the start node of the link”, and “a field 307 to enter the node ID of the end node of the link”),
wherein the topology relationship specifies a connection between the map element and another map element, wherein the map element comprises a virtual map element, wherein the virtual map element is a first road or first intersection displayed on the first map and not defined by a tangible lane line Fig.5 and Paragraph 0047 “ A set of difference update data representing a series of these addition and deletion becomes map update data”, an example of a real road not marked by a lane line being updated),
and sending the message to the map server (Fig.8, #806 and Paragraph 0051 “the navigation device 20 sends a map update request 806 to the map distribution center 10 in a map update requesting 810”)
However, Asahara doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
and wherein an autonomous vehicle is configured to control movement of the autonomous vehicle based on the first map
Nevertheless, Hou discloses on-board data processing systems that relies on maps and/or images of roads for autonomous driving and teaches the following:
and wherein an autonomous vehicle is configured to control movement of the autonomous vehicle based on the first map (Paragraphs 0005-0006, 0061, and 0069)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Asahara reference to include controlling movement of autonomous vehicle based on an updated map, as taught by Hou, in order to provide a more accurate autonomous vehicle control.
In re claim 8, Asahara discloses a data updating method for a map data distribution system (Abstract) and teaches the following:
receiving a message from a client, wherein the message comprising an instruction to update a road network topology structure of a first map (Fig.8, #803, #806, and Paragraph 0051 “the navigation device 20 sends a map update request 806 to the map distribution center 10 in a map update requesting 810 “ and “The map distribution center 10 obtains this per-area version information by the map update requesting 803”), and wherein the road network topology structure comprises at least one of a position or orientation of a map element (Fig.3, #303, and Paragraph 0043 “a field 303 to enter the width of the link”), a size of the map element, or a topology relationship of the map element (Fig.3, #306, #307, and Paragraph 0043 “a field 306 to enter the node ID of the start node of the link”, and “a field 307 to enter the node ID of the end node of the link”),
wherein the topology relationship specifies a connection between the map element and another map element, wherein the map element comprises a virtual map element, wherein the virtual map element is a first road or first intersection displayed on the first map and not defined by a tangible lane line Fig.5 and Paragraph 0047 “ A set of difference update data representing a series of these addition and deletion becomes map update data”, an example of a real road not marked by a lane line being updated),
and updating the road network topology structure based on the message to obtain a second map (Fig.8, #804, #807, and Paragraph 0051 “the map distribution center 10 fetches a map update data ID required for updating the map data of this version by the map update request reception 803, and sends back a map update data ID list 807, which is a list of the map update data IDs, to the navigation device 20”)
However, Asahara doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein an autonomous vehicle is configured to control movement of the autonomous vehicle based on the first map or the second map
Nevertheless, Hou discloses on-board data processing systems that relies on maps and/or images of roads for autonomous driving and teaches the following:
wherein an autonomous vehicle is configured to control movement of the autonomous vehicle based on the first map or the second map (Paragraphs 0005-0006, 0061, and 0069)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Asahara reference to include controlling movement of autonomous vehicle based on an updated map, as taught by Hou, in order to provide a more accurate autonomous vehicle control.
In re claims 3, 10, and 17, Asahara teaches the following:
receiving an operation task, wherein the message carries information about the operation task (Paragraph 0045 “The navigation device 20, when instructed by a user to update the map of a specified area via the GUI part 111, request from the map distribution server 101 difference update data required for updating the specified area.”)
In re claims 4, and 18, Asahara teaches the following:
wherein the operation comprises selecting a to-be-updated map element on the first map, wherein the message carries a map update instruction instructing the map server to update a to-be-updated map element, and wherein the method further comprises: converting pixel coordinates of the to-be-updated map element into map coordinates in response to the user selecting the to-be-updated map element on the UI (Paragraph 0051 “the navigation device 20 starts a map updating when a user operates the GUI part 111”, the BRI of converting pixel coordinates into map coordinates is the user selecting on the UI and said selection is processed and sent);
and generating the map update instruction based on the map coordinates, wherein the map update instruction carries first map coordinate information of the to-be-updated map element (Paragraph 0049 “Out of these difference update data, added, deleted, or changed links that are interconnected to form a network are collected and designated as map update data”, and Paragraph Fig.8, #806 and Paragraph 0051 “the navigation device 20 sends a map update request 806 to the map distribution center 10 in a map update requesting 810. The map update request 806 contains a per-area version of map data.”)
In re claims 5 and 19, Asahara teaches the following:
wherein the operation further comprises selecting an update position of the to-be-updated map element on the first map (Paragraph 0051 “the navigation device 20 starts a map updating when a user operates the GUI part 111”), wherein the map update instruction further carries second map coordinate information of the update position and indicating a position for updating the to-be-updated map element (Paragraph 0051 “the map distribution center 10 fetches a map update data ID required for updating the map data of this version by the map update request reception 803, and sends back a map update data ID list 807, which is a list of the map update data IDs, to the navigation device 20.”)
In re claims 6 and 20, Asahara teaches the following:
obtaining one or more parameters based on one or more operation tasks (Paragraph 0051 “the map distribution center 10 fetches a map update data ID required for updating the map data of this version by the map update request reception 803, and sends back a map update data ID list 807, which is a list of the map update data IDs, to the navigation device 20.”), wherein the one or more parameters comprise: a right of way parameter of each road in a path corresponding to the one or more operation tasks; a passage attribute of each road in the path; and a capacity of each road and/or intersection in the path (Fig.11, “data ID”);
and sending the one or more parameters to the map server to update the road network topology structure (Fig.8, #808 and Paragraph 0051 “he navigation device 20 select unobtained IDs from the received map update data ID list, and requests the unobtained map update data IDs by sending a map update data request 808 to the map distribution center 10.”)
In re claims 7 and 14, Asahara teaches the following:
receiving a second map from the map server, wherein the second map is based on an update of the road network topology structure in response to the message (Fig.8, and Paragraph 0051)
In re claim 11, Asahara teaches the following:
wherein the message carries a map update instruction, wherein the map update instruction instructs to update a to-be- updated map element (Paragraph 0051 “the navigation device 20 starts a map updating when a user operates the GUI part 111”), and wherein the map update instruction carries first map coordinate information of the to-be-updated map element (Paragraph 0051 “The map update request 806 contains a per-area version of map data.”)
In re claim 12, Asahara teaches the following:
wherein the map update instruction further carries second map coordinate information of an update position and indicating a position for updating the to-be-updated map element (Fig.3, Fig.4, and Paragraph 0051 “The map update request 806 contains a per-area version of map data.”)
In re claim 13, Asahara teaches the following:
receiving one or more parameters (Paragraph 0051 “the map distribution center 10 fetches a map update data ID required for updating the map data of this version by the map update request reception 803, and sends back a map update data ID list 807, which is a list of the map update data IDs, to the navigation device 20.”), wherein the one or more parameters comprise: a right of way parameter of each road in a path corresponding to the one or more operation tasks; a passage attribute of each road in the path; and a capacity of each road and/or intersection in the path (Fig.11, “data ID”);
and updating the road network topology structure based on the one or more parameters (Fig.8, #808 and Paragraph 0051 “he navigation device 20 select unobtained IDs from the received map update data ID list, and requests the unobtained map update data IDs by sending a map update data request 808 to the map distribution center 10.”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that the amended claims is integrated into the practical application of improving the performance of the computer because the claimed features improve the movements of an autonomous vehicle, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As discussed above, the gist of the invention is to update a road network topology structure. The additional limitation of an autonomous vehicle is configured to control movement of the autonomous vehicle based on the first map is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and that Asahara does not describe generating a message in response to an operation of a user on a user interface, wherein the message comprises an instruction for a map server to update a road network topology structure of a first map, wherein the map element comprises a virtual map element, and wherein the virtual map element is a first road or first intersection displayed on the first map and not defined by a tangible lane line, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. Asahara discloses “generating a message in response to an operation of a user on a user interface, wherein the message comprises an instruction for a map server to update a road network topology structure of a first map” in at least Paragraph 0045 “The navigation device 20, when instructed by a user to update the map of a specified area via the GUI part 111, request from the map distribution server 101 difference update data required for updating the specified area”. Furthermore, Asahara teaches that “wherein the road network topology structure comprises at least one of a pose a position and orientation of a map element, a size of the map element, or a topology relationship of the map element in at least Fig.3, #303, and Paragraph 0043 “a field 303 to enter the width of the link”. Asahara also discloses “a topology relationship of the map element” in at least Fig.3, #306, #307, and Paragraph 0043 “a field 306 to enter the node ID of the start node of the link”, and “a field 307 to enter the node ID of the end node of the link”.
With respect to applicant’s argument/remarks that Asahara is silent on whether the past map or the latest map includes a virtual map element, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. According to the 112 rejection above, the examiner is treating a virtual map element as a road that is displayed on a map but is not marked by a lane line in a real operation scenario, as recited in applicant’s specification Paragraph 0107. Asahara discloses in Paragraph 0046 that “roads connected with each other in the real world must be connected on the data even after a per-area update is done”, and Fig.5 and Paragraph 0047 discloses an example of a real road not marked by a lane line being updated. Accordingly, Asahara discloses the claimed invention.
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 RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-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 M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669