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 .
Application Status
Claims 15-34 are pending and have been examined in this application. Claims 1-14 are cancelled.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 23 July 2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 22 should be amended to recite “wherein the device is configured to: ...; and [[to]] join the assigned interpolation point of the respective interpolation point plane under consideration, by a path segment, to [[the]] an assigned interpolation point of the preceding interpolation point plane ...” to avoid repetition of “to” and since such limitation “assigned interpolation point of the preceding interpolation point plane” is not previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 23 should be amended to recite “determine a first subset of [[the]] measured driving paths of [[the]] one or more points of intersection from which the first interpolation point ...; determine a second subset of measured driving paths of [[the]] one or more points of intersection from which an interpolation point of another interpolation point plane ...; and assign ... on a basis of a Jaccard coefficient of the first and second subsets of measured driving paths ...” since such limitations are not previously recited and to use the correct plural term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 24 should be amended to recite “determining first speed values for [[the]] one or more points of intersection of a first subset of measured driving paths ...; determining second speed values for [[the]] one or more points of intersection of a second subset of measured driving paths ...” since such limitations are not previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “device” in claims 15-27.
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. See at least [0077] and [0104] of Applicant’s as-filed specification.
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 § 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 15-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 is indefinite because the preamble is missing a transitional phrase. Therefore, it is unclear, to the Examiner, whether the claim is meant to be open ended or not.
Claims 15 and 28 are indefinite because of the recited limitations “the sequence of sets of interpolation points”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claims at least for the reason of different wording being used (the previous recitation does not use the word “sequence” for the sets of interpolation points).
Claims 16-18 and 29-31 are indefinite because of the recited limitations of “the plurality of determined points of intersection” and “the plurality of points of intersection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitations in the claims at least for the reason of different wording being used (the previous recitation does not use the word “plurality of” for [the determined points of intersection]/[the points of intersection]).
Claims 20 and 33 are indefinite because of the recited limitations “a digital map” (the second instance) and “a profile”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring to the same digital map (first instance) previously recited in claim 20/33 and the same profile previously recited in claim 15/28 or not.
Claims 21 and 34 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “the individual interpolation point planes” using different wording. It is unclear, to the Examiner, why the different wording of “individual” is being used in this limitation, the limitation continuing with “are each ...” already indicates that they’re being talked about individually.
Claims 19, 22-27 and 32 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-34 are 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 15 is directed to a device and claim 28 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 15 and 28 are 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 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 15 as discussed here. Claim 15 recites:
A device for determining a reference driving path for a road section, wherein the device is configured to: determine a plurality of measured driving paths of one or more vehicles for a corresponding plurality of runs through the road section; divide a profile of the road section into a sequence of interpolation point planes; for each of the plurality of measured driving paths, determine a respective sequence of points of intersection of the respective measured driving path with the corresponding sequence of interpolation point planes; for each of the sequence of interpolation point planes, determine a respective set of interpolation points on a basis of the determined points of intersection with the respective interpolation point plane; and determine at least one reference driving path for the road section on a basis of the sequence of sets of interpolation points for the corresponding sequence of interpolation point planes
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, all the determining limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
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”):
A device for determining a reference driving path for a road section, wherein the device is configured to: determine a plurality of measured driving paths of one or more vehicles for a corresponding plurality of runs through the road section; divide a profile of the road section into a sequence of interpolation point planes; for each of the plurality of measured driving paths, determine a respective sequence of points of intersection of the respective measured driving path with the corresponding sequence of interpolation point planes; for each of the sequence of interpolation point planes, determine a respective set of interpolation points on a basis of the determined points of intersection with the respective interpolation point plane; and determine at least one reference driving path for the road section on a basis of the sequence of sets of interpolation points for the corresponding sequence of interpolation point planes
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of dividing ..., the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the dividing ... step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of processing data from some of the previous steps and for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering and/or post solution action, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claim 15 further recites “A device for ..., wherein the device is configured to: ...” (claim 15) which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
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 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 15 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of dividing ... is well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner and because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16-27 and 29-34 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 additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 16-27 and 29-34 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 15.
Therefore, claims 15-34 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15, 17-23, 25-28 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US20180348761A1) in view of Pannen (DE102020105250A1 – translation attached).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu discloses a device for determining a reference driving path for a road section (see at least [0016]), wherein the device is configured to: determine a plurality of measured driving paths of one or more vehicles for a corresponding plurality of runs through the road section (see at least [0016], [0030], [0046] and [0048]); divide a profile of the road section into a sequence of interpolation point segments (see at least [0016], [0029] and [0049]); for each of the plurality of measured driving paths, determine a respective sequence of points of proximity of the respective measured driving path with the corresponding sequence of interpolation point segments (see at least [0016], [0030] and [0050]); for each of the sequence of interpolation point segments, determine a respective set of interpolation points on a basis of the determined points of proximity with the respective interpolation point segment (see at least [0016], [0030] and [0050]); and determine at least one reference driving path for the road section on a basis of the sequence of sets of interpolation points for the corresponding sequence of interpolation point segments (see at least [0016], [0030], [0050] and [0053]).
Zhu doesn’t explicitly disclose for the sequence of interpolation point segments to be sequence of interpolation point planes and for the sequence of points of proximity to be sequence of points of intersection. However, Pannen teaches the sequence of interpolation point segments being sequence of interpolation point planes and the sequence of points of proximity being sequence of points of intersection (see at least Figures 3-4, [0039]-[0041], [0046]-[0048], [0050] and [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Pannen which teaches the sequence of interpolation point segments being sequence of interpolation point planes and the sequence of points of proximity being sequence of points of intersection since they are both directed to road section analysis for use in vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Pannen would increase accuracy of the determinations and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 17, Zhu as modified by Pannen discloses wherein the device is configured to: identify one or more points of intersection from the plurality of points of intersection with an interpolation point plane as outliers (see at least Zhu [0049] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”); and leave the one or more points of intersection identified as outliers unconsidered when determining the set of interpolation points for the interpolation point plane (see at least Zhu [0049] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”).
Regarding claim 18, Zhu as modified by Pannen discloses wherein the device is configured to: determine a subset of points of intersection for an interpolation point from the plurality of determined points of intersection with an interpolation point plane on a basis of a clustering algorithm (see at least Zhu [0016], [0030] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”); and determine the interpolation point as a trimmed average of the subset of points of intersection (see at least Zhu [0049] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”).
Regarding claim 19, Zhu as modified by Pannen discloses wherein a measured driving path of a vehicle in each case comprises a sequence of measurement points of a position of a reference point of the vehicle in a run through the road section; and/or a measured driving path of a vehicle indicates a driving trajectory of the vehicle in a run through the road section (see at least Zhu [0016], [0030], [0046] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 20, Zhu as modified by Pannen discloses wherein the device is configured to: determine a map profile of the road section recorded in a digital map based on a digital map in relation to the road section (see at least Zhu Figure 1, Figure 3, [0016], [0029], [0033], [0040], [0043] and [0048]); and use the map profile of the road section as a profile for division of the road section into the sequence of interpolation point planes (see at least Zhu [0016], [0029], [0033], [0040], [0043], [0048] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 21, Zhu as modified by Pannen discloses wherein the device is configured to: determine the sequence of interpolation point planes such that: directly consecutive interpolation point planes along the profile of the road section are each at a predefined distance from one another; and/or the individual interpolation point planes are each arranged perpendicular to the profile of the road section (see at least Zhu [0049] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”).
Regarding claim 22, Zhu discloses so that the reference driving path is formed sequentially by the path segments between the respectively assigned interpolation points (see at least [0016], [0030], [0050] and [0053]).
Zhu does not explicitly disclose the details of wherein the device is configured to: sequentially along the sequence of interpolation point planes: assign a respective interpolation point from the set of interpolation points of the respective interpolation point plane under consideration to the reference driving path to be determined; and to join the assigned interpolation point of the respective interpolation point plane under consideration, by a path segment, to the assigned interpolation point of the preceding interpolation point plane arranged before the interpolation point plane under consideration. However, Pannen teaches wherein the device is configured to: sequentially along the sequence of interpolation point planes: assign a respective interpolation point from the set of interpolation points of the respective interpolation point plane under consideration to the reference driving path to be determined; and to join the assigned interpolation point of the respective interpolation point plane under consideration, by a path segment, to the assigned interpolation point of the preceding interpolation point plane arranged before the interpolation point plane under consideration (see at least Figure 5, [0052] and [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Pannen which teaches wherein the device is configured to: sequentially along the sequence of interpolation point planes: assign a respective interpolation point from the set of interpolation points of the respective interpolation point plane under consideration to the reference driving path to be determined; and to join the assigned interpolation point of the respective interpolation point plane under consideration, by a path segment, to the assigned interpolation point of the preceding interpolation point plane arranged before the interpolation point plane under consideration since they are both directed to road section analysis for use in vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Pannen would increase accuracy of the determinations and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 23, Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is configured to: for a first interpolation point in a particular interpolation point plane from the sequence of interpolation point planes: determine a first subset of the measured driving paths of the one or more points of intersection from which the first interpolation point of the particular interpolation point plane was determined; determine a second subset of measured driving paths of the one or more points of intersection from which an interpolation point of another interpolation point plane that was already assigned to the reference driving path was determined; and assign the first interpolation point to the reference driving path on a basis of a Jaccard coefficient of the first and second subset of measured driving paths. However, Pannen teaches wherein the device is configured to: for a first interpolation point in a particular interpolation point plane from the sequence of interpolation point planes: determine a first subset of the measured driving paths of the one or more points of intersection from which the first interpolation point of the particular interpolation point plane was determined; determine a second subset of measured driving paths of the one or more points of intersection from which an interpolation point of another interpolation point plane that was already assigned to the reference driving path was determined; and assign the first interpolation point to the reference driving path on a basis of a Jaccard coefficient of the first and second subset of measured driving paths (see at least Figure 5, [0052] and [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Pannen which teaches wherein the device is configured to: for a first interpolation point in a particular interpolation point plane from the sequence of interpolation point planes: determine a first subset of the measured driving paths of the one or more points of intersection from which the first interpolation point of the particular interpolation point plane was determined; determine a second subset of measured driving paths of the one or more points of intersection from which an interpolation point of another interpolation point plane that was already assigned to the reference driving path was determined; and assign the first interpolation point to the reference driving path on a basis of a Jaccard coefficient of the first and second subset of measured driving paths since they are both directed to road section analysis for use in vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Pannen would increase accuracy of the determinations and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 25, Zhu as modified by Pannen discloses wherein the device is configured to: provide the determined reference driving path as map data in relation to the road section for a digital map (see at least Zhu Figure 1, Figure 3, [0016], [0029], [0033], [0040], [0043] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 26, Zhu as modified by Pannen discloses wherein the reference driving path is designed such that the reference driving path is able to be used as target trajectory for an at least partially self-driving vehicle in a run through the road section; and/or the reference driving path indicates a sequence of target positions of a reference point of a vehicle in a run through the road section (see at least Zhu [0016]).
Regarding claim 27, Zhu as modified by Pannen discloses wherein the device is configured to: determine the reference driving path independently of road markings of the road section that are recorded using sensors; and/or determine the reference driving path on a basis of the plurality of measured driving paths as well when the road section does not have any road markings able to be recorded using sensors for identifying one or more lanes (see at least Zhu [0003], [0016], [0030], [0050] and [0053]).
Regarding claims 28 and 30-34, claims 28 and 30-34 are commensurate in scope with claims 15 and 17-21, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 15 and 17-21.
Claims 16 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US20180348761A1) in view of Pannen (DE102020105250A1 – translation attached) in further view of Ester (NPL, ‘A Density-Based ...”, attached by Applicant).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu as modified by Pannen discloses wherein the device is configured to: determine the set of interpolation points for an interpolation point plane on a basis of a clustering algorithm, for clustering the plurality of determined points of intersection with the interpolation point plane (see at least Zhu [0016], [0030] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”).
Zhu as modified by Pannen fails to disclose the clustering algorithm to be a Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) algorithm. However, Ester teaches the clustering algorithm being a Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) algorithm (see at least abstract and section 4. “DBSCAN ...” on pages 3-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Zhu as modified by Pannen to incorporate the teachings of Ester which teaches the clustering algorithm being a Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) algorithm since they are directed to clustering points and incorporation of the teachings of Ester would introduce another possible way known to one of ordinary skill in the art to cluster points and increase utility and applicability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is commensurate in scope with claim 16. See above for rejection of claim 16.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US20180348761A1) in view of Pannen (DE102020105250A1 – translation attached) in further view of Gao (WO2023061740A1 – translation attached).
Regarding claim 24, Zhu as modified by Pannen discloses a path segment between a first interpolation point of a first interpolation point plane and a second interpolation point of a second interpolation point plane of the reference driving path, the one or more points of intersection of a first subset of measured driving paths from which the first interpolation point was determined; the one or more points of intersection of a second subset of measured driving paths from which the second interpolation point was determined (see at least Zhu [0016], [0030] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”).
Zhu as modified by Pannen does not disclose wherein the device is configured to: determine an empirical speed for the path segment by: determining first speed values for the first subset of measured driving paths; determining second speed values for the second subset of measured driving paths; and determining the empirical speed for the path segment on a basis of an average of the first and/or second speed values. However, Gao teaches wherein the device is configured to: determine an empirical speed for the path segment by: determining first speed values for the first subset of measured driving paths; determining second speed values for the second subset of measured driving paths; and determining the empirical speed for the path segment on a basis of an average of the first and/or second speed values (see at least [0013], [0029]-[0032], [0035]-[0037] and [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Zhu as modified by Pannen to incorporate the teachings of Gao which teaches wherein the device is configured to: determine an empirical speed for the path segment by: determining first speed values for the first subset of measured driving paths; determining second speed values for the second subset of measured driving paths; and determining the empirical speed for the path segment on a basis of an average of the first and/or second speed values since they are directed to measured driving paths in vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Gao would increase utility and applicability of the overall system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights