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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, 13, and 15 have been amended. Claims 2 and 14 have been canceled. Claims 23 and 24 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to claims 1-22 rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-22 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 10-12, 13, 18-19, and 22 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive, as the amended claims incorporate limitations not disclosed by the prior art of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (20200300641; hereinafter Li, already of record) in view of Feigen (20010041691; already of record).
Applicant argues that Li fails to disclose of receiving user-input road information as a user input via the user-interface device; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the prior Office Action of record, Li discloses “The I/O module 430 may be configured to enable a user to interact with the processing engine 112. In some embodiments, a user may set hyper-parameters ... a request message for choosing a map image) to a user” ¶ 63, wherein the claimed user-input road information is recited at a high level of generality and under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the user input of Li does disclose of this claimed limitation.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the newly amended limitations, the limitations will be addressed in the detailed rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (20200300641; hereinafter Li, already of record).
Regarding claim 23, Li teaches a computer-implemented method for identifying roads carried out by a system including at least one processor configured to execute instructions and a user-interface device having a display screen, the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, a navigational database corresponding to a portion of global terrain (Li: “The processing module 420 may be configured to process data related to map images and/or road network images. The processing module 420 may obtain or receive data and/or information from the acquisition module 410, the storage module 430, and/or any storage devices capable of storing data” ¶ 61, see also ¶ 49);
receiving, by the at least one processor, user-input road information as a user input via the user-interface device (Li: “The I/O module 430 may be configured to enable a user to interact with the processing engine 112. In some embodiments, a user may set hyper-parameters” ¶ 63), the user-input road information including information received as location coordinates collected by the user-interface device to indicate a location of a road (Li: “the acquisition module 410 may acquire various types of data. Merely by ways of example, the acquired data may include map images, road network images, machine learning models (e.g., a DCNN model), hyper-parameters of machine learning models, user instructions, programs, algorithms, or the like ... a road network image may include one or more road features such as coordinates of two ends of a road, road length, road width, road safety, traffic light, traffic flow, road maintenance, road type (highway, service road, one-way street, two-way street, etc.), etc.” ¶ 60, see also ¶ 52);
identifying, by the at least one processor, a new road or preferred route in the portion of global terrain based on the navigational database and the user-input road information (Li: “the image processing unit 510 may process a road map or a road network image by performing various operations to determine new roads on the road map image or the road network image” ¶ 69, see also ¶ 68, 70); and
updating, by the at least one processor, the navigational database to include the new road or preferred route (Li: “The storage unit 530 may be configured to store data related to the determination of new roads” ¶ 72).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 10-12, 13, 15, 18-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Feigen (20010041691; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a computer-implemented method for identifying roads carried out by a system including at least one processor configured to execute instructions and a user-interface device having a display screen (Li: Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, an aerial image of a portion of global terrain (Li: “road network images automatically based on historical road network images and current maps or high-resolution aerial images” ¶ 37);
displaying, by the at least one processor, the aerial image on the display screen of the user-interface device (Li: “output information (e.g., one or more network images of new roads, a request message for choosing a map image) to a user” ¶ 63);
receiving, by the at least one processor, user-input road information as a user input via the user-interface device (Li: “The I/O module 430 may be configured to enable a user to interact with the processing engine 112. In some embodiments, a user may set hyper-parameters ... a request message for choosing a map image) to a user” ¶ 63, see also ¶ 70),
...
identifying, by the at least one processor, a new road or preferred route in the portion of global terrain based on the aerial image and the user-input road information (Li: “the image processing unit 510 may process a road map or a road network image by performing various operations to determine new roads on the road map image or the road network image” ¶ 69, see also ¶ 68, 70); and
updating, by the at least one processor, a navigational database to include the new road or preferred route (Li: “The storage unit 530 may be configured to store data related to the determination of new roads” ¶ 72).
However, Li fails to teach the user-input road information including information received as a user-traced overlay of the aerial image indicating a location of a road on the display screen of the user-interface device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Feigen teaches the user-input road information including information received as a user-traced overlay of the aerial image indicating a location of a road on the display screen of the user-interface device (Feigen: “A map image is displayed on the display of the navigation system and the end-user uses the input panel to draw a shape overlaid on the map image. The navigation programming then defines a preferred area corresponding to the area encompassed within the shape on the map image” ¶ 59, see also ¶ 60).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the route identification system of Li so that it also includes the element of a user-traced overlay of the aerial image, as taught by Feigen, in order to improve map area selection and analysis (Feigen: ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Feigen teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user-input road information is further received as location coordinates collected by the user-interface device (Li: “The positioning device 170 may determine information associated with an object, for example, one or more of the user terminal 130 ... The location may be in the form of coordinates, such as, a latitude coordinate and a longitude coordinate, etc.” ¶ 52) to indicate a location of a road (Li: “when a user terminal 130 processes a task, such as determining new roads, the user terminal 130 may operate logical circuits in its processor to process such task” ¶ 53).
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Feigen teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining global position coordinates of the user-input road information (Li: “the positioning device 170 may be a global positioning system (GPS)” ¶ 52); and
processing a portion of the aerial image corresponding to the global position coordinates to identify the new road (Li: “A passenger may receive new roads on a map via the user terminal 130. In some embodiments, the user terminal 130 may obtain a road map from the processing engine 112 ... communicate with the positioning device 170 for locating the position of the passenger and/or the user terminal 130, and determining a relative distance from his/her position to a road” ¶ 47).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Feigen teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
comparing the new road to existing roads in the navigational database (Li: “the training unit 520 may compare the processing result with the reference” ¶ 105),
wherein updating the navigational database includes updating an existing road in the navigational database with the new road or preferred route (Li: “If the preset condition is satisfied, the process 900 may proceed to 940, and a trained machine learning model may be determined” ¶ 105, see also ¶ 104).
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Feigen teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising identifying at least one intersection between the new road and an existing road in the navigational database (Li: “Relative positions between two ends of each of the second plurality of roads and an origin of the coordinate system may be determined” ¶ 83).
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Feigen teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the new road or preferred route in the portion of global terrain based on the aerial image includes comparing the user-input road information to a candidate road in the aerial image (Li: “enable a user to interact with the processing engine 112. In some embodiments, a user may set hyper-parameters” ¶ 63, “compare the processing result with the reference, and determine whether a preset condition is satisfied ... If the preset condition is not satisfied, another map may be input into the machine learning model, and one or more parameters (e.g., one or more weights) of the machine learning model may be updated based on the input” ¶ 105).
Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Feigen teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising snapping the user-input road information to a closest candidate road in the aerial image (Li: “configured to further extract one or more features from the output (i.e., the image A 815) of the first pair of convolution layer and pooling layer 810, and generate a second feature image ... the second pair of convolution layer and pooling layer 820 may be similar to or the same as the first pair of convolution layer and pooling layer 810. Merely for illustration purposes, the size of the image B 825 may be one fourth the size of the map image 805” ¶ 93, see also ¶ 94).
In regards to claim(s) 13, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 1, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 15, 18, 19, and 22, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 3, 6, 7 and 10, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Claim(s) 4-5, 8-9, 16-17, 20-21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Feigen, as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10-12, 13, 15, 18-19, and 22 above, in further view of Adler (20210012108, already of record).
Regarding claim 4, Li fails to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving new road metadata including additional information associated with the new road or preferred route.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches the claim limitation of receiving new road metadata including information associated with the new road (Adler: “receiving new road metadata including additional information associated with the new road or preferred route” ¶ 127).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the route identification system of Li in view of Feigen so that it also includes the element of receiving new metadata, as taught by Adler, in order to improve navigational assistance (Adler: ¶ 133).
Regarding claim 5, Li fails to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the new road metadata includes a natural resource or energy industry feature reachable by the new road or preferred route.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches the claim limitation of the new road metadata includes a natural resource or energy industry feature (Adler: “such metadata may include a road surface type, a road surface quality, a road width, a capability to carry a vehicle type, a photograph of the road, a destination reachable via the road (such as an oilfield well site) or another oilfield feature accessible via the road” ¶ 128).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the route identification system of Li in view of Feigen so that it also includes the element of receiving new metadata including a natural resource or energy industry feature, as taught by Adler, in order to improve navigational assistance (Adler: ¶ 133).
Regarding claim 8, Li fails to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a request from a user device for navigational instructions including a destination reachable by use of the new road or preferred route; and
transmitting at least a portion of navigational data stored in the navigational database to the user device to provide the navigational instructions.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches the claim limitation of receiving a request for navigational instruction and transmitting at least a portion of navigation data to provide navigational instructions (Adler “capture additional information concerning the road that may be of interest to a user of a navigation platform. In embodiments, the systems and methods are described in the context of their application to the identification of private or leased roads within oilfield regions such that oilfield workers may benefit from improved and more efficient navigation in these areas” ¶ 34, see also ¶ 35, 79).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the route identification system of Li in view of Feigen so that it also includes the element of receiving a request and transmitting navigational instructions, as taught by Adler, in order to improve navigational assistance (Adler: ¶ 133).
Regarding claim 9, Li fails to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising identifying at least one natural resource or energy industry feature reachable by the new road or preferred route.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches the claim limitation of identifying at least one natural resource or energy industry feature (Adler: “such metadata may include a road surface type, a road surface quality, a road width, a capability to carry a vehicle type, a photograph of the road, a destination reachable via the road (such as an oilfield well site) or another oilfield feature accessible via the road” ¶ 128).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the route identification system of Li in view of Feigen so that it also includes the element of identifying at least one natural resource or energy industry feature, as taught by Adler, in order to improve navigational assistance (Adler: ¶ 133).
Regarding claim 24, Li fails to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 23 further comprising selecting, by the user-interface device, between operation in a live update mode and a store and forward mode.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches selecting, by the user-interface device, between operation in a live update mode and a store and forward mode (Adler: “client 102a provides a “live” or current location update to server 106. There may be times however when client 102a is either unable to communicate with server 106 (for example when out of signal coverage of mobile network 104) or is configured not to communicate a live location (for example to conserve battery power of the client 102 or to conserve radio communication bandwidth and resources)” ¶ 121).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the route updating system of Li in view of Feigen so that it also includes the element of live or store and forward modes, as taught by Adler, in order to conserve communication resources (Adler: ¶ 121)
In regards to claim(s) 16-17, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 4-5, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 20-21, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 8-9, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Levine et al. (20100057336) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of map updating.
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 CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights