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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority JP2023163106 on 09/26/2023 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/03/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control unit configured to ...” in claim 1
The specification describes a control unit as a processor in paragraph 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chikamori et al. (20220221300; hereinafter Chikamori).
Regarding claim 1, Chikamori teaches an information processing device that detects a difference between a reference map and an input map (Chikamori: Abstract), comprising a control unit configured to:
acquire a reference map and an input map each including a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges (Chikamori: “The map acquiring unit 51 is configured to access the map server 3 and acquire dynamic map data, which is high-precision map information, from the map server 3” ¶ 63, “The dynamic map data is more detailed than the navigation map data stored in the navigation device 11, and includes static information, semi-static information, semi-dynamic information, and dynamic information” ¶ 64, “Each roadway node is provided at the halfway point between each node of the delimiting line set on a left edge of the road and each node of the delimiting line set on a right edge of the road. The roadway nodes are provided at prescribed intervals along the road” ¶ 66, see also ¶ 67);
divide each region of the reference map and the input map into a branch region in which a road or a lane is branched and a non-branch region other than the branch region (Chikamori: Fig. 6A and Fig. 6B Elements P and Q, “the branching route adding process, the probe information managing unit 63 adds the branching route to the high-precision map based on plural pieces of probe information transmitted from the vehicles traveling on an expressway or the like to the map server 3” ¶ 100, “determines that the added branching route is present. The probe information managing unit 63 (the map server 3) executes step ST4 upon determining that the added branching route is present, while ends the branching route adding process upon determining that the added branching route is not present” ¶ 105, see also ¶ 129);
determine the branch region and the non-branch region of the input map corresponding to the branch region and the non-branch region of the reference map based on a degree of overlap between the branch region of the reference map and the branch region of the input map and a degree of overlap between the non-branch region of the reference map and the non-branch region of the input map (Chikamori: “the branching route adding process, the probe information managing unit 63 acquires plural pieces of probe information acquired after the turn signal operation, namely plural pieces of turn signal information from the probe information transmitted from a plurality of vehicles. Each piece of the turn signal information includes the position (latitude and longitude) where the turn signal operation has been performed, the travel history of the vehicle after the turn signal operation, the indicating direction (namely, the travel direction of the vehicle) corresponding to the turn signal operation” ¶ 101, “many vehicles have similar travel histories and thus the travel histories of the vehicles after the turn signal operation are consistent with each other, the probe information managing unit 63 determines that the added branching route is present” ¶ 104, “thus determines that the added branching route is present. The probe information managing unit 63 (the map server 3) executes step ST4 upon determining that the added branching route is present, while ends the branching route adding process upon determining that the added branching route is not present” ¶ 105);
calculate, for each of the corresponding regions, a graph editing path that minimizes an editing cost determined by a predetermined criterion (Chikamori: “The probe information managing unit 63 divides the map on which the points indicating the travel histories of the vehicles are plotted into the grid areas, and determines whether there is a grid area where the density of the points is equal to or more than the prescribed value. Accordingly, the probe information managing unit 63 determines whether the travel histories of the vehicles after the turn signal operation are consistent with each other, and thus acquires the presence/absence of the added branching route” ¶ 114, see also ¶ 118, 119, 120); and
output graph editing paths for a plurality of the corresponding regions as the difference between the reference map and the input map (Chikamori: “When the branching route is added, the travel histories of the vehicles traveling on the branching route run along the branching route, and are consistent with each other. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 7B, many points indicating the travel histories of the vehicles are present in an area along the branching route (see broken lines in FIG. 7B), and thus the density of the points in the area along the branching route increases (see the area surrounded by thick lines in FIG. 7B)” ¶ 113).
Regarding claim 2, Chikamori teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit outputs a sum of editing costs for the corresponding regions as a distance or a degree of difference between the reference map and the input map (Chikamori: “determines whether the travel histories of the vehicles after the turn signal operation are consistent with each other by determining whether the density on the map is equal to or more than the prescribed threshold (prescribed value) and acquires the presence/absence of the added branching route (step ST3). In this way, the probe information managing unit 63 determines whether the high-precision map needs to be updated by determining whether the travel histories of the vehicles are consistent based on the probe information from a plurality of vehicles” ¶ 119).
Regarding claim 3, Chikamori teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit divides each of the regions of the reference map and the input map into the branch region and the non-branch region based on a position of a branch node included in the reference map and the input map or based on information specifying the branch region and provided to the reference map and the input map (Chikamori: “the points indicating the travel histories of the vehicles recorded in the determination table T2, divides the map into grid areas, and calculates the density of the points in each grid area. In a case where there is an area in the map where the density of the points indicating the travel histories is equal to or more than a prescribed value the probe information managing unit 63 estimates that the travel histories of the vehicles after the turn signal operation are consistent with each other” ¶ 105).
Regarding claim 4, Chikamori teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit calculates the graph editing paths after deleting a non-branch intermediate node that is a node other than an entry end and an exit end of the branch region (Chikamori: “a process for deleting the travel lane on the high-precision map ... the process for deleting the travel lane is executed when a part of the travel lanes of an expressway or the like is deleted by construction or the like” ¶ 99) or the non-branch region and that is not a branch node and editing nodes at both ends of the non-branch intermediate node so as to be connected using an edge.
Regarding claim 5, Chikamori teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
the control unit provides a lane number to lanes included in each road in a predetermined order (Chikamori: “the dynamic map data includes information on the lanes (for example, the number of lanes) on the travel route and information on each delimiting line” ¶ 65); and
the editing cost is larger when correlating nodes with different lane numbers than when correlating nodes with the same lane number (Chikamori: “the road surface information stored in the probe information storage unit 64 to the high-precision map as an attribute of each lane link (a link of each lane). At this time, the probe information storage unit 64 may add plural pieces of the road surface information received from the controller 16 to the high-precision map after executing statistical processing on the plural pieces of the road surface information (for example, after acquiring an average or a mode). Further, when the road surface information has already been added to the high-precision map, the probe information storage unit 64 may appropriately update the added road surface information based on the acquired road surface information” ¶ 124, see also ¶ 105, 114).
Regarding claim 6, Chikamori teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the editing cost is larger as nodes to be correlated are positioned farther, and a larger editing cost is given to positional deviation in a direction orthogonal to a traveling direction of a road corresponding to a node than to positional deviation in the traveling direction (Chikamori: Fig. 6B Elements P0 to P4 and Q0 to Q4, “in a case where the curvature of the road on which the vehicle is traveling is equal to or more than a prescribed value and the front-and-rear acceleration is equal to or more than a prescribed value, the probe information acquiring unit 33 determines that the vehicle behavior deviates from the shape of the road” ¶ 129, Note: Wherein it can be seen the nodes of P0-P4 are orthogonal to the traveling direction of Q0-Q4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mo et al. (20230019719) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of map processing.
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