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 .
Claims 1 thru 20 have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: P[0001] references Application Number 18/086990. This application has since become Patent Number 12,092,480. The patent number should be included in P[0001] to improve the quality of the document.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 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.
Each of claims 5, 15 and 20 recite “a road” (seven times in each claim), while “a road” is also recited earlier in each claim (line 2). It is unclear if these are new roads, or the same roads. The examiner assumes they are the same road for continued examination.
Claim 10 recites, “a warning signal is provided to a second vehicle in response to generation of the indication by a first vehicle, the warning signal indicating at least one of operation of the second vehicle in a manual driving mode and gathering extra sensor data by the second vehicle”. It is unclear how a warning signal from a first vehicle to a second vehicle is an indication of the second vehicle driving in manual mode, or that the second vehicle is gathering extra sensor data. The examiner has read the specification and interprets claim 10 to be, “a warning signal is provided to a second vehicle in response to generation of the indication by a first vehicle, the warning signal indicating at least one of, to cause the second vehicle to operate in a manual driving mode, and to cause the second vehicle to gather extra sensor data” for continued examination.
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 thru 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 11 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 16 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, an indication associated with a region of a map;
determining, by the computing system, a type of the indication; and
prioritizing, by the computing system, generation of a map update associated with the indication based on the type of the indication.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could determine the type of indication based on the received data and that person could decide on the order or priority of the map update. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claims 11 and 16 recite, “determining a type of the indication” and “prioritizing generation of a map update associated with the indication based on the type of the indication”, and thus also recite at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), an indication associated with a region of a map (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
determining, by the computing system (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), a type of the indication; and
prioritizing, by the computing system (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), generation of a map update associated with the indication based on the type of the indication.
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of a computing system, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of receiving an indication associated with a region of a map, this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Similarly, claim 11 recites, at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving an indication associated with a region of a map; determining a type of the indication; and prioritizing generation of a map update associated with the indication based on the type of the indication.
Regarding the additional limitations of at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of receiving an indication associated with a region of a map, this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 11 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 11 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Similarly, claim 16 recites, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: receiving an indication associated with a region of a map; determining a type of the indication; and prioritizing generation of a map update associated with the indication based on the type of the indication.
Regarding the additional limitation of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions executed by at least one processor; this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of receiving an indication associated with a region of a map, this additional limitation merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 16 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 11, and 16 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1, the additional limitation of a computing system, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 11, the additional limitations of at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 16, the additional limitation of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions executed by at least one processor; this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of receiving an indication associated with a region of a map, this additional limitation has been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such a limitation is not unconventional as it merely consist of data gathering which is recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, adding a preliminary step of gathering data to a process that only recites determining a type of indication and prioritizing the generation of a map update (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of updating a map (?). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims 2 thru 9, 10, 12 thru 15 and 17 thru 20 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2, 12 and 17 are directed to: the indication is associated with a discrepancy relating to the region of the map and a property of an environment in which a vehicle is travelling. (Defining the indication).
Dependent claims 3, 13 and 18 are directed to: the type of indication relates to an unsafe condition. (Defining the type of indication).
Dependent claims 4, 14 and 19 are directed to: the unsafe condition is associated with at least one of an obstacle blocking a road and a closed road. (Defining the unsafe condition).
Dependent claims 5, 15 and 20 are directed to: the type of indication is from a plurality of types of indications including at least one of a presence of a road connecting a first location to a second location, a shape of a road, number of lanes in a road, availability of a road, angle of a road, name of a road, traffic signs included in a road, obstacles included in a road, and amount of traffic on a road. (Defining the type of indication).
Dependent claim 6 is directed to: the map update is provided to vehicles in a priority list and is not provided to vehicles not in the priority list. (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), (the transmission of information), also see MPEP § 2106.05(d).II. for receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Dependent claim 7 is directed to: the priority list only includes at least one of i) vehicles included in the region of the map update, ii) vehicles included in the region of the map update and regions adjacent to the region, and iii) vehicles within a predetermined radius of a location associated with a discrepancy associated with the indication. (Defining the priority list).
Dependent claim 8 is directed to: the map update is provided to a second vehicle after a user associated with a first vehicle verifies accuracy of the map update. (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), (the transmission of information being authorized).
Dependent claim 9 is directed to: a time to perform the map update on a map associated with a vehicle is specified by a user associated with the vehicle.
Dependent claim 10 is directed to: a warning signal is provided to a second vehicle in response to generation of the indication by a first vehicle (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the warning signal indicating at least one of operation of the second vehicle in a manual driving mode and gathering extra sensor data by the second vehicle. (Defining the warning signal).
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, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bai et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0254665 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 16 Bai et al disclose the claimed computer implemented method, methods for refreshing and updating maps P[0011] and the processes of Figures 5 thru 8, the claimed system, “The controller apparatus 100 is in various embodiments part of a greater system 102, such as a vehicle.” (P[0042] and Figure 1), and the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium that includes instructions executed by a processor of a computing system to cause the computing system to perform operations, “The data storage device 104 includes one or more storage modules 110 storing computer-readable code or instructions executable by the hardware-based processing unit 106 to perform the functions of the hardware-based controlling apparatus 100” P[0050], and “operations of the processes 500, 600, 700, 800 and/or substantially equivalent operations are performed by a processor, e.g., computer processor, executing computer-executable instructions stored or included on a computer-readable medium” P[0111], the system comprising:
the claimed at least one processor, hardware-based processing unit 106 (Figure 1); and
the claimed memory storing instructions executed by the processor, “The data storage device 104 includes one or more storage modules 110 storing computer-readable code or instructions executable by the hardware-based processing unit 106 to perform the functions of the hardware-based controlling apparatus 100” (P[0050] and Figure 1),
the method/operations comprising:
the claimed receiving an indication associated with a region of a map by a computing system, the nav unit obtains needed data corresponding to a more-pertinent region, such as regarding a two-mile radius, forward-facing purview, or two-miles of current road plus portions of connecting roads of certain road class (P[0146] and P[0151]), “If the resource-scarce condition is found present at diamond 502, flow proceeds to operation 504, whereat the processor determines which map features (or feature category) are critical, or more important. The map features, characteristics or attributes, can be referenced by other terms, such as map elements, or map features. The operation 504 can also include determining which map features are non-critical, or less important.” (P[0123] and Figure 5), the more pertinent region equates to the critical or more important map features, “At block 506, the processor generates a map data set—for instance, modifies an existing map data set, or pulls select elements from the existing set—based on the prior analysis, to include the critical features.” P[0137], and “At block 508, the processor 306 schedules, transmits, or initiates transmission of periodic downloads, or pre-loads, to the navigation unit of critical attributes identified at operation 504, and separated out at operation 506.” P[0139];
the claimed determining a type of the indication, “dividing available map attributes into three groups or categories: (1) high criticality, (2) medium criticality, and (3) low, or no, criticality” P[0127]; and
the claimed prioritizing generation of a map update associated with the indication based on the type of indication, “a process or flow 500 in FIG. 5, determines what map data to send or make available to a navigation unit, and when, based on a prioritization of map features” P[0113], and “The prioritizing may be performed using a ranking function for prioritized individual attributes or categories of attributes and determining when or whether to deliver respective map data to a navigation unit.” P[0115].
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) 2 thru 7, 12 thru 15 and 17 thru 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0254665 A1 in view of Wheeler et al Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0188045 A1.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 17 Bai et al teach the claimed indication is associated with a property of an environment in which a vehicle is traveling, obtain needed data corresponding to a more-pertinent region, such as regarding a two-mile radius, or forward-facing purview, or two-miles of current road plus portions of connecting roads of certain road class P[0151]. Bai et al do not teach the claimed indication is associated with a discrepancy of the region of the map, but if there is missing or changed map data, then the map of Bai et al would have an update of the more critical data (such as a stop sign or a one way road P[031]).
Wheeler et al teach, “The map discrepancy module 290 works with the map update API 285 to determine map discrepancies and communicate map discrepancy information to the online HD map system 110.” P[0053], and “The map discrepancy module 290 may construct the update message, which may comprise a vehicle identifier (ID), one or more timestamps, a route traveled, lane element IDs of lane elements traversed, a type of discrepancy, a magnitude of discrepancy, a discrepancy fingerprint to help identify duplicate discrepancy alert messages, a size of message” P[0053]. The map discrepancies of Wheeler et al would be updated based on a criticality of Bai et al (highly critical would be updated first). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map updating of Bai et al with the map updating for discrepancies of Wheeler et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve the accuracy of the landmark maps), and improve passenger and pedestrian safety (Wheeler et al P[0006]).
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 18 Bai et al do not explicitly teach the claimed type of indication relates to an unsafe condition, but the updates to the map concerning stop signs and one way road may be interpreted related to an unsafe condition. Wheeler et al teach, “The lanes represented by the HD map system 100 include lanes that are explicitly marked, for example, white and yellow striped lanes, lanes that are implicit, for example, on a country road with no lines or curbs but two directions of travel, and implicit paths that act as lanes, for example, the path that a turning car makes when entering a lane from another lane. The HD map system 100 also stores information relative to lanes, for example, landmark features such as road signs and traffic lights relative to the lanes, occupancy grids relative to the lanes for obstacle detection, and navigable spaces relative to the lanes so the vehicle can efficiently plan/react in emergencies when the vehicle must make an unplanned move out of the lane. Accordingly, the HD map system 100 stores a representation of a network of lanes to allow a vehicle to plan a legal path between a source and a destination and to add a frame of reference for real time sensing and control of the vehicle. The HD map system 100 stores information and provides APIs that allow a vehicle to determine the lane that the vehicle is currently in, the precise vehicle location relative to the lane geometry, and all relevant features/data relative to the lane and adjoining and connected lanes.” P[0072]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map updating of Bai et al with the map updating for lane markings, road signs and traffic lights of Wheeler et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve the accuracy of the landmark maps), and improve passenger and pedestrian safety (Wheeler et al P[0006]).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 19 Bai et al do not teach the claimed unsafe condition is associated with an obstacle blocking a road or a closed road, but a closed or blocked road would be a highly critical reason for perform an update to the maps. Wheeler et al teach, “HD map data may indicate that a lane of a freeway should be usable by the vehicle 150, but sensor data 230 may indicate there is construction work occurring in that lane which has closed it from use. Upon detecting a map discrepancy, the vehicle 150 sends an update message to the online HD map system 110 comprising information regarding the map discrepancy. The map discrepancy module 290 may construct the update message, which may comprise a vehicle identifier (ID), one or more timestamps, a route traveled, lane element IDs of lane elements traversed, a type of discrepancy, a magnitude of discrepancy, a discrepancy fingerprint to help identify duplicate discrepancy alert messages, a size of message” P[0053], and “if the additional data pertains a lane of a road which has temporarily closed due to construction work nearby, the online HD map system 110 may update the map to indicate that lane of that road as temporarily closed” P[0149]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map updating of Bai et al with the map updating for closed lanes of Wheeler et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve the accuracy of the landmark maps), and improve passenger and pedestrian safety (Wheeler et al P[0006]).
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 20 Bai et al teach the claimed type of indication includes traffic signs included in the road, and an amount of traffic on the road, “a pre-programmed high-critical attribute, a traffic-control attribute, such as a stop sign, stop light, or one-way-street sign or indicator, are in some embodiments pre-programmed into the algorithm as highly critical” P[0131], “the criticality level that a map attribute is assigned can depend on context” P[0132], and “if the navigation system is active and a real-time traffic layer is requested, the required map elements would include those related to the navigation and traffic data that has been requested by the application” P[0129].
Regarding claim 6 Bai et al do not teach the claimed map update is provided to vehicles in a priority list and is not provided to vehicle not in the priority list. Wheeler et al teach, “The online HD map system 110 then selects 1408 an identified vehicle 150 based on the ranking. For example, if the vehicle with the lowest upload rate, ranked first, does not pass through the particular location, but the vehicle with the second lowest upload rate, ranked second, does, then the vehicle with the second lowest upload rate is selected.” P[0147]. The ranking of vehicles on Wheeler et al would be implemented as part of the criticality of Bai et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map updating of Bai et al with the map updating of vehicles based on a ranking of Wheeler et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve the accuracy of the landmark maps), and improve passenger and pedestrian safety (Wheeler et al P[0006]).
Regarding claim 7 Bai et al do not teach the claimed priority list includes vehicles in the region of the map update. Wheeler et al teach, “The online HD map system 110 then selects 1408 an identified vehicle 150 based on the ranking. For example, if the vehicle with the lowest upload rate, ranked first, does not pass through the particular location, but the vehicle with the second lowest upload rate, ranked second, does, then the vehicle with the second lowest upload rate is selected.” P[0147]. The passing through a particular location equates to the claimed region. The ranking of vehicles on Wheeler et al would be implemented as part of the criticality of Bai et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map updating of Bai et al with the map updating of vehicles based on a ranking of Wheeler et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve the accuracy of the landmark maps), and improve passenger and pedestrian safety (Wheeler et al P[0006]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0254665 A1 in view of JP-2020523579-A Japanese Patent Application Publication Number (translation cited).
Regarding claim 8 Bai et al do not teach the claimed map update is provided to a second vehicle after a user associated with a first vehicle verifies accuracy of the map update. JP-2020523579-A teaches, allowing the user to validate changes to the map data (translation page 18 paragraph 1), “If in step S906 the post-verification transaction is determined to be invalid, then in step S907 the post-verification transaction is flagged as invalid and the process ends. Alternatively, if it is determined in step S907 that the post-verification transaction is valid, the post-validation circuit signs the post-verification transaction in step S908. In operation S909, the post-validation circuit sends the signed post-verification transaction to the potential transaction database.” (translation page 16 paragraph 1), and “At operation S910, the blockchain processing circuit extracts the signed post-verification transaction from the potential transaction database and incorporates it into the map block along with other post-verification transactions, if possible. In operation S911, the block chain processing circuit sends the map block to the map data block chain and adds the map block to the map data block chain according to the map block chain protocol.” (translation page 16 paragraph 2), the transactions are changes to the map data (translation page 10 paragraph 5). The verification of the data would be incorporated into Bai et al as a step after the map is updated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map updating of Bai et al with the sending of verified map updates for of a database for use by others of JP-2020523579-A in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent malicious users from modifying the map data (JP-2020523579-A translation page 18 paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0254665 A1 in view of Ikeuchi et al Patent Number 6,643,584 B1.
Regarding claim 9 Bai et al do not teach the claimed time to perform the map update on a map associated with a vehicle is specified by a user associated with the vehicle. This limitation is merely a user selecting when to have the map updated. Ikeuchi et al teach, “when the user selects updating of maps through the input unit 11 (in step S102), a region selection screen as shown in FIG. 7 is displayed on the display unit 8. The user can select a predetermined region that is to be updated from the display screen (in step S103). The region which the user can select can be one of a plurality of divided areas, such as a plurality of administrative divisions, or a plurality of cities, towns, and villages other than a plurality of regional divisions as shown in FIG. 7.” (Figure 4 and column 10 lines 4 thru 12). The user selecting the map update to occur equates to the claimed time to perform the map update. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map updating of Bai et al with the user selecting when to update the selected map region of Ikeuchi et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce the amount of data transmitted (Ikeuchi et al column 2 line 2).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0254665 A1 in view of Jeong et al Korean Patent Application Publication Number KR-20180023328-A (translation cited).
Regarding claim 10 Bai et al do not teach the claimed “a warning signal is provided to a second vehicle in response to generation of the indication by a first vehicle, the warning signal indicating at least one of cause the second vehicle to operate in a manual driving mode, and cause the second vehicle to gather extra sensor data” (examiner interpretation). Jeong et al teach, “The second vehicle 20 detects an obstacle based on various sensors in response to the obstacle information request from the server 30, and then provides the obstacle information to the server 30.” (translation pages 3 and 4 bridging paragraph), “The first vehicle 10 requests the server 30 for the obstacle information in the rectangular area corresponding to the current position on the route to the destination and receives the obstacle information corresponding thereto from the server 30.” (page 3 paragraph 5), “The server 30 also searches for the second vehicle 20 located on the road around the road on the route of the first vehicle 10 based on the GPS coordinates, speed, route information and the like received from the first vehicle 10, And requests the searched second vehicle 20 for obstacle information.” (page 4 paragraph 8), “in response to the obstacle information providing service request from the first vehicle 10, the obstacle information is requested 202 to the second vehicle 20 located on the traveling route of the first vehicle 10” (page 4 paragraph 13), “the first vehicle 10 can request an obstacle search to a plurality of second vehicles 20 located in the vicinity through the V2V communication” (page 5 paragraph 6), and “the second vehicle 20 receives the obstacle search request message and detects the obstacle” (page 5 paragraph 7), the message from the first vehicle to the second vehicle equates to the claimed warning signal. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map updating of Bai et al with the second vehicle receiving an obstacle request from the first vehicle and detecting the obstacle of Jeong et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, avoid collisions with pedestrians (Jeong et al translation page 1 last paragraph).
Related Art
The examiner points to Sasajima PGPub 2004/0117110 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Sasajima is directed to a user selecting a map area to be updated (Figure 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662