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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant asserts that the amended limitations incorporate the previously identified abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “physical system” described is merely a generic processor and memory, without further structure. The described improvement in function of controllers by reducing processing and memory requirements are not reflected in the claims.
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention represents an improvement in autonomous vehicle control by determining a route to a destination based on the traffic light information. Examiner disagrees. The traffic light information is taken from HD information, and HD map information is already the standard used for autonomous vehicle navigation.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is therefore maintained.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103, Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not teach the amended limitations of the independent claims.
Examiner agrees, however, as these represent new, previously unexamined limitations, this is moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of integrating navigation map data (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An apparatus for integrating a map of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to classify a high definition map, which is previously stored, into a plurality of layers, to change the high definition map to include a format to be integrated with a standard definition map, and generate an integrated map obtained by integrating the standard definition map with the high definition map; and
a memory configured to store the integrated map,
wherein the processor is configured to classify the high definition map into layers including a localization layer, obtain information related to a traffic light around a road on which the vehicle is driving using the localization layer, and generate an information related to searching for a route to a destination based on the information related to the traffic light.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers an activity of the human mind. For example, “classify…” in the context of the claim comprises an analysis of data. “to change…” in the context of the claim comprises a modification of data, and “to generate an integrated map…” comprises combining and integrating data. “generate an information…” comprises using information related to the traffic light (for example, SPAT information) as part of the route searching process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An apparatus for integrating a map of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to classify a high definition map, which is previously stored, into a plurality of layers, to change the high definition map to include a format to be integrated with a standard definition map, and generate an integrated map obtained by integrating the standard definition map with the high definition map; and
a memory configured to store the integrated map,
wherein the processor is configured to classify the high definition map into layers including a localization layer, obtain information related to a traffic light around a road on which the vehicle is driving using the localization layer, and generate an information related to searching for a route to a destination based on the information related to the traffic light.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations to not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “a processor…” and “a memory…” the examiner submits that these are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality. Regarding the additional limitation of “store the integrated map…” the examiner submits that this amounts to merely storing the result of the mental process, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation of “obtaining…” this amounts to merely retrieving particular information from the HD map data, which is considered 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. And as discussed above, the additional limitation of “a processor…” and “a memory…” the examiner submits that these are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality. Regarding the additional limitation of “store the integrated map…” the examiner submits that this amounts to merely storing the result of the mental process. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Claim 2 describes a generic “output device” and further data analysis. Claims 3-11 define the layers of the map and included data. Claim 12 defines a generic output device. Claims 13-16 describe providing information for route-finding. Claims 17-18 describe providing driving guidance. Claim 19 defines the output device as an AR HUD without further detail.
Claim 20 is directed to a method for performing the process described in claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 12-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Buslaev et al. (US 20250012600 A1) in view of Mintz (US 20220319312 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Buslaev teaches: An apparatus for integrating a map of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to classify a high definition map, which is previously stored, into a plurality of layers, (See Buslaev [0036]-[0039] for HD map datastore and different layers of HD map data) to change the high definition map to include a format to be integrated with a standard definition map, (See Buslaev [0061]-[0062] for different data formats. See [0038] for different levels of granularity and for augmentation of SD map with HD features, requiring modification of format/granularity) and generate an integrated map obtained by integrating the standard definition map with the high definition map; and (See [0037]-[0038] for augmentation of SD map with HD map)
a memory configured to store the integrated map. (See Buslaev [0014]-[0017] for storing map tiles which are rendered by client device. The result of the integration must inherently be stored in memory in order to be rendered.)
Buslaev does not explicitly teach: wherein the processor is configured to classify the high definition map into the plurality of layers including a localization layer, obtain information related to a traffic light around a road on which the vehicle is driving using the localization layer, and generate an information related to searching for a route to a destination based on the information related to the traffic light.
Per the specification of the present application, paragraph [0066], the “localization layer” appears to be the layer which contains information related to permanent features of or around a road, such as road signs or markings, road edges, traffic lights and signs, road facilities, and poles.
While Buslaev does not explicitly name a localization layer, see Buslaev [0026] for map objects which have a significance for mapping context, including road edges, lane markings, intersections, streetlights, street signs, etc.
Mintz teaches a system including a navigation service which calculates routes for according to received requests (See Mintz [0051]) which incorporates information such as traffic light plans into path planning (See Mintz [0120]-[0122], [0551])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the system of Buslaev to incorporate the traffic light plan information of Mintz in order to provide more efficient route planning service to the user of the system.
Regarding claim 2, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
set, as a map tile, one of a plurality of divided portions obtained by dividing an image, which is output through an output device operatively connected to the processor, by a predetermined number, and classify information included in the map tile into the plurality of layers. (See Buslaev [0014]-[0017], [0021], [0030] and throughout for generating map tiles and providing the tiles and layer data to a client device)
Regarding claim 3, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to:
classify the information included in the map tile into the plurality of layers including a lane layer, a standard definition (SD) match layer, a local match layer, and a route layer. (Examiner notes that the layers defined in this claim are named but not described. See Buslaev [0030] for augmenting SD map data with HD map data, creating HD layers on top of SD map data or map layers. See [0050] for aligning features. See [0035]-[0039] for layer examples including roadways, speed limits, lane markings, common routes,)
Regarding claim 8, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to:
perform the classifying so that the localization layer includes information related to a road sign, a road mark, a road edge portion, the traffic light, a traffic sign, a road facility, and a pole. (See [0027]-[0029] for determining user and object positions, e.g. localization. See [0026] for examples of map objects including road edges, lane markings, traffic lights, street signs, etc.)
Regarding claim 9, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to:
allow the local match layer to include a lane local matching table. (Examiner notes that the local matching table is named but not described. A table is a well-known method of ordering data, likely to be used in a database as described in Buslaev [0033] and elsewhere.)
Regarding claim 10, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to:
perform the classifying so that the lane local matching table includes information matched between the lane layer and the localization layer. (See Buslaev for comparisons of geolocation data and telemetry to determine lane line positions, comparable to comparison of different map layers)
Regarding claim 12, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, further including:
an output device operatively connected to the processor and configured to output the integrated map. (See Buslaev [0013]-[0015] for client device 120 that sends requests, receives map tiles, and renders the data)
Regarding claim 13, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to:
output, through the output device, information related to a host vehicle, a surrounding vehicle, and a driving lane, in response that an autonomous driving mode is activated. (See Buslaev [0018] for provision of map tiles and map data needed for autonomous driving to client device. See [0028] for telemetry related to client device and host vehicle, see [0025]-[0027] for object detection including lane markings, [0035]-[0036] for traffic patterns and traffic conditions)
Regarding claim 14, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to:
generate information for searching for the route to the destination, based on the integrated map, in response that the destination is input. (See Buslaev [0017], [0019] for displaying maps and providing navigation instructions, common features of mapping programs and inherently requiring a destination be provided)
Regarding claim 15, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to:
generate the information for searching for the route by including a driving lane for driving of the vehicle to arrive at the destination. (See Buslaev [0050] for addition of driving lane information to SD map layers.)
Regarding claim 16, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to:
output, through the output device, the information for searching for the route, based on the integrated map, in response that the information for searching for the route is generated. (See Buslaev [0014] for client system that request map tiles and map system which responds with the desired map tiles, which inherently must be generated before they can be sent.)
Regarding claim 18, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to:
output, through the output device, an image for guiding a lane allowing driving, in response that the information for searching for the route is output. (See Buslaev [0017], [0019], for providing navigation services and instructions)
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to a method for operating the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buslaev et al. (US 20250012600 A1) in view of Mintz (US 20220319312 A1) and Stenneth et al. (US 20230303111 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Buslaev in view of Mintz teaches: The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to: …
Buslaev does not explicitly teach: perform the classifying so that the lane layer includes a road link, a road node, a lane side, a lane link, and a border road link which are included in the map tile.
Buslaev teaches layers that include roadway elements, lane lines and the like. In addition, the representation of roads and lanes as a series of nodes and links is well-known in the art of map-based navigation methods.
For example, Stenneth teaches a method of map-based autonomous vehicle navigation (See Stenneth [0003]) which uses links to represent roads and lanes and nodes to represent the connection points of these links (See Stenneth [0156]-[0158]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the navigation system of Buslaev to use links and nodes to represent roads and lanes, as taught in Stenneth.
Regarding claim 5, Buslaev in view of Mintz teaches: The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Buslaev does not explicitly teach: perform the classifying so that the SD match layer includes a core matching table and a core node matching table.
Based on paragraph [0065] of the specification of the present application, the core matching table and core node matching table represent data which appears in both the HD and SD maps.
Buslaev teaches [0047], [0050] teaches aligning features such a roads between SD and HD map layers.
Buslaev teaches layers that include roadway elements, lane lines and the like. In addition, the representation of roads and lanes as a series of nodes and links is well-known in the art of map-based navigation methods.
For example, Stenneth teaches a method of map-based autonomous vehicle navigation (See Stenneth [0003]) which uses links to represent roads and lanes and nodes to represent the connection points of these links, as well as localization based on shared features (See Stenneth [0156]-[0158]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the navigation system of Buslaev to use links and nodes to represent roads and lanes, as taught in Stenneth. In addition, a table is merely one of many forms of organizing data. It would have been obvious to modify the localization and layer alignment data of Buslaev in view of Stenneth in a table, without any unexpected or advantageous result.
Regarding claim 6, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to:
allow the core matching table to include a road link matched in the standard definition map and the high definition map, (See Stenneth [0156]-[0158] for road links and nodes and matching features between layers) and an identification (ID) of the map tile including the road link. (See Buslaev [0014]-[0015] and throughout and Stenneth [0149]-[0150] for map tiles and features associated with tiles)
Regarding claim 7, modified Buslaev teaches: The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to:
allow the core matching table to include information related to a node matched in the standard definition map and the high definition map, (See Stenneth [0156]-[0158] for road links and nodes and matching features between layers) and an identification (ID) of the map tile including the node. (See Buslaev [0014]-[0015] and throughout and Stenneth [0149]-[0150] for map tiles and features associated with tiles)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buslaev et al. (US 20250012600 A1) in view of Mintz (US 20220319312 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 20200393261 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Buslaev in view of Mintz teaches: The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to: …
Buslaev does not explicitly teach: perform the classifying so that the route layer includes information related to a link, a node, a border link, and safety.
Buslaev teaches layers that include roadway elements, lane lines and the like. In addition, the representation of roads and lanes as a series of nodes and links is well-known in the art of map-based navigation methods.
For example, Zhang teaches a method of map-based autonomous vehicle navigation (See Zhang [0008]) which uses links to represent roads and lanes and nodes to represent the connection points of these links (See Zhang [0282]-[0283]) incorporating data including speed bumps (a safety example given in the specification of the present application) (See Zhang [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the navigation system of Buslaev to use links and nodes to represent roads and lanes, as taught in Zhang, and to incorporate environmental data such as speed bumps in order to safely navigate the vehicle.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buslaev et al. (US 20250012600 A1) in view of Mintz (US 20220319312 A1) and Lee et al. (US 20190383629 A1)
Regarding claim 17, Buslaev in view of Mintz teaches: The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Buslaev does not explicitly teach: output, through the output device, an image for guiding lane change based on a traffic amount of the driving lane, in response that the information for searching for the route is output.
However, Lee teaches a method of vehicle route guidance (See abstract) including lane guidance based on traffic conditions (See Lee [0025]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the navigation instructions of Buslaev to incorporate lane guidance based on surrounding traffic conditions as taught in Lee to provide safer or more efficient travel.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buslaev et al. (US 20250012600 A1) in view of Mintz (US 20220319312 A1) and Son et al. (US 20200082621 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Buslaev in view of Mintz teaches: The apparatus of claim 12,
Buslaev does not explicitly teach: wherein the output device includes an augmented reality head-up display.
Buslaev does teach augmented reality, (See Buslaev [0021] where client map application may be configured for augmented reality) but does not explicitly teach an AR HUD.
However, Son teaches the projection of map data onto an augmented reality HUD (See Son Figs 1 and 4 and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the system of Buslaev to use an augmented reality HUD, as taught in Son, as the embodiment of the augmented reality client device.
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 JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET whose telephone number is (571)272-2501. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:00. 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on 571-270-7016. 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.
/JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights