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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 10/08/2024. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Hungary on 04/08/2022.
Status of Application
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 1-16 are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1 and 8 are independent claims.
Claims 1-16 will be examined.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Claims” dated 10/08/2024.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Spelling error “manoeuvre” on page 7, line 25
Spelling error “object polarization module 82” on page 11, line 20
Spelling error “prioritisation” page 13, and line 29 and page 14, line 3
Spelling error “analysed” page 14, line 1
Spelling error “categorised” page 14, line 15 and line 20
Spelling error “categorisation” page 14, line 18
Spelling error “summarise,” page 14, line 25
Spelling error “centreline” page 18, line 19
Spelling error “utilised” page 20, line 24
Spelling error “analyse” page 23, line 21
Spelling error “neighbours” page 27, line 27
Spelling error “favouring” page 28, line 13
Spelling error “penalised” page 28, line 20 and line 22
Spelling error “favour” page 29, line 13
Appropriate corrections are required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
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, (f) 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “map-matching module adapted for calculating map-matched location
information” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “for calculating” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 8 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “map-matching module,” is described by “computations carried out by the map-matching module 80,” (¶ [0065-0066]), see also FIG. 3, wherein the “map-matching module” is computer hardware which “uses any known map-matching method or algorithm (e.g. software) known in the art,” (¶ [0057]).
Claim limitation “object prioritization module adapted for determining objects” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “for determining” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 11 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “object prioritization module adapted for determining objects,” is disclosed as “object prioritization module 82,” “wherein the object prioritization module 82 is in connection with the map-matching module 80,” (¶ [0060]), see also FIG. 3, and “object prioritization module 82 preferably returns a filtered set of objects 85,” (¶ [0066]) and “priority list is set up in the object prioritization module 82 which is based on various rules,” and “object prioritization module 82 may take the following information into account…” (¶¶ [0087-0133]), wherein the “object prioritization module 82” is a computer component for calculating, computer software, or computer storage.
Claim limitations “map-aware application,” “forward collision warning module,” “intersection movement assist module,” and “context-based prioritization module” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “application” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 14 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations: “map-aware application,” “forward collision warning module,” “intersection movement assist module,” and “context-based prioritization module,” are disclosed as “map-aware application 90 is a forward collision warning module, an intersection movement assist module, and/or a context-based prioritization module,” (¶ [0062], see also FIG. 3), wherein the map-aware application 90 is a computer component for calculating, computer software, or computer storage.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Office suggests review of all claims to determine if there are similar errors as listed above. The list above is exemplary in nature and by no means exhaustive. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed “object prioritization module” is not described within the specification in order to interpret what the Applicant is claiming. Is the “object prioritization module” an apparatus or a computer used for computing? Is the “object prioritization module” an apparatus within the computer used for storage? Is the “object prioritization module” software or code used by the computer?
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed “map-aware application,” “forward collision warning module,” “intersection movement assist module,” and “context-based prioritization module,” are not described within the specification in order to interpret what the Applicant is claiming. Are the “map-aware application,” “forward collision warning module,” “intersection movement assist module,” and “context-based prioritization module,” an apparatus or a computer used for computing? Are the “map-aware application,” “forward collision warning module,” “intersection movement assist module,” and “context-based prioritization module,” an apparatus within the computer used for storage? Are the “map-aware application,” “forward collision warning module,” “intersection movement assist module,” and “context-based prioritization module,” software or code used by the computer?
Appropriate action 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.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because the metes and bounds have not been established.
The term “local high-definition map” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “local high-definition map” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person or manufacturer defines as “local”, a second person or manufacturer may not and therefore the claim is not clear. Is the term “local high-definition map” as used in the claims, relative to a “local” place (e.g. on-vehicle, server) where the map is stored? Is the term “local high-definition map” as used in the claims, relative to “local” positioning of the map elements (e.g. map element within a vehicle environment)?
The claim(s) has/have been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner as any high definition map located within any database containing any map location data..
The dependent claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to resolve the deficiencies of the independent claim 1.
Claims 11-14, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “object prioritization module” is indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because the metes and bounds have not been established. Is the “object prioritization module” an apparatus or a computer used for computing? Is the “object prioritization module” an apparatus within the computer used for storage? Is the “object prioritization module” software or code used by the computer?
For the purpose of examination in this Office Action, the claim 11 have/has been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner as any computer component or software used for location and map matching an object.
The terms “map-aware application,” “forward collision warning module,” “intersection movement assist module,” and “context-based prioritization module,” are indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because the metes and bounds have not been established. Are the “map-aware application,” “forward collision warning module,” “intersection movement assist module,” and “context-based prioritization module,” an apparatus or a computer used for computing? Are the “map-aware application,” “forward collision warning module,” “intersection movement assist module,” and “context-based prioritization module,” an apparatus within the computer used for storage? Are the “map-aware application,” “forward collision warning module,” “intersection movement assist module,” and “context-based prioritization module,” software or code used by the computer?
For the purpose of examination in this Office Action, the claim 14 has been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner as any computer component or software used for location and map matching an object.
The term “relevance to an entity hosting the system” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevance to an entity hosting the system” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person or manufacturer defines as “relevance to an entity hosting the system,” a second person or manufacturer may not and therefore the claim is not clear. Is the term “relevance to an entity hosting the system” as used in the claims, referring to an importance to the hosting system? Is the term “relevance to an entity hosting the system” as used in the claims, referring to the spatial environment to the hosting system? Is the term “relevance to an entity hosting the system” as used in the claims, referring to physical comparison to the hosting system?
The claim(s) has/have been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner as any relevance of any object within the environment of the hosting system.
The dependent claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to resolve the deficiencies of the dependent claim 12.
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 1-7, and 15-16, are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea in the form of receiving, constructing, generating, reducing (i.e. reduction step), merging, defining, the data and information for assembling a local high-definition map.
Regarding eligibility step 1, the claimed invention of claim 1 falls into at least one of the statutory categories; namely, method(s) and system(s).
Proceeding to eligibility step 2, prong I, the limitations of receiving, constructing, generating, reducing (i.e. reduction step), merging, defining, any data and information for assembling a local high-definition map, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a non-transitory computer program,” “executed by a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or falls under mathematical concepts. For example, but for the “non-transitory computer program,” “executed by a computer,” the receiving, constructing, generating, reducing (i.e. reduction step), merging, defining, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually steps of making a decision about the assembling a local high-definition map, for navigation. For example, but for the “by a computing device” language, the receiving, constructing, generating, reducing (i.e. reduction step), merging, defining, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about and generating the a local high-definition map, for navigation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2A, prong II, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computing device to perform receiving, constructing, generating, reducing (i.e. reduction step), merging, defining steps. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. a computer), as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, constructing, generating, reducing (i.e. reduction step), merging, defining, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform receiving, constructing, generating, reducing (i.e. reduction step), merging, defining steps, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of receiving, constructing, generating, reducing (i.e. reduction step), merging, defining, any data and information for assembling a local high-definition map, amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer which do not render an abstract idea eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception..
Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, and 15-16, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim1.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle with the local high-definition map. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 is directed to a computer program comprising program code instructions configured for the execution of a method, and does not meet the requirements of a process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. Corrective action or clarification is required. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a signal per se, mere information in the form of data.
Claims 8-14, are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites generating (i.e. calculating), transmitting, receiving and outputting (i.e. storing) an object location.
The limitations of generating, transmitting, receiving and outputting the object location, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a computing device,” (i.e. system with computer modules and object database) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the computing device” language, “generating, transmitting, receiving and outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually steps of making a decision about the object location, for traffic safety. For example, but for the “by a computing device” language, “generating, transmitting, receiving and outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking about and generating the object location, for traffic safety. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computing device to perform generating, transmitting, receiving and outputting steps. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating, transmitting, receiving and outputting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform generating, transmitting, receiving and outputting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 9-14, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 8.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle or device with the object location. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALU et al., US 20210269057, herein further known as Balu, in view of MAO et al., US 20210095971, herein further known as Mau.
Regarding clam 1, Balu discloses assembling a local high-definition map (¶¶ [0094-0095]), the method comprising the steps of receiving a plurality of path histories (¶ [0057]), see also claim 7), wherein each path history comprises a set of location points (¶¶ [0003], [0071]) that an entity consecutively traversed (¶ [0088], receiving anonymized data corresponding to a trajectory traversed by a user), constructing, based on the plurality of path histories (¶¶ [0036], reconstructing a trajectory from anonymized data… based a current location and location history, [0044], database 107 may include device or probe data… historical data, [0083]), generate the predicted data… use the anonymized data), an initial graph comprising location nodes, intersection nodes and edges (¶ [0064]), wherein each location node corresponds to one of the location points (¶¶ [0003], [0071]), each intersection node corresponds to an intersection point of two of the path histories (¶ [0064]) (¶¶ [0036], reconstructing a trajectory from anonymized data… based a current location and location history, [0044], database 107 may include device or probe data… historical data, [0083]), and edges are defined between location nodes corresponding to adjacent location points of one of the path histories, and, in case of an intersection node, edges are defined between the intersection node and location nodes corresponding to location points of each of the respective two path histories between which location points the respective intersection point lies (¶¶ [0057], probabilities for transition between various trajectory segments, or portions thereof, of an anonymized trajectory, and link corresponding trajectory segments based on their respective scores and durations, [0096], [0100]), and generating, in a reduction step, a reduced graph by removing redundancies of the received path histories (¶ [0067], filter out links).
However, Balu does not explicitly state undirected graph.
Mao teaches undirected graph (¶ [0103]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Balu the undirected graph as taught by Mao.
One would be motivated to modify Balu in view of Mao for the reasons stated in Mao paragraph [0051], more robust map making, navigation experiences (e.g., especially for cheaper user devices which may have lower quality GPS or other positioning systems), location intelligence, improved autonomous driving or highly assisted driving; and improved last mile solution for a trip.
Furthermore, Mao teaches assembling a local high-definition map (¶ [0127] see also FIG. 10), receiving a plurality of path histories wherein each path history comprises set of location points an entity consecutively traversed (¶¶ [0111], [0113] probe point(s) recorded, trajectories are made of individual probe points, (i.e. path histories) [0127], road segment data records (i.e. path histories), constructing, based on the plurality of path histories an initial undirected graph (¶ [0103]) comprising nodes (¶¶ [0053], [0088], the node (or shape points) of every road inside the traveling path [0092], node of road links, [0130-0137], [0141-0143], ), intersection nodes (¶¶ [0090], see also claim 8, and edges (¶¶ [0128], [0132]) each location node corresponds to one of the location points (¶ [0137], location… represented by a node), each intersection node corresponds to an intersection point of two of the path histories, and edges are defined between location nodes corresponding to adjacent location points of one of the path histories, and in case of an intersection node, edges are defined between the intersection node and location nodes corresponding to location points of each of the respective two path histories between which location points the respective intersection point lies (¶¶ [0053], [0088], [0103], [0111], [0113], [0127], [0130-0137], [0141-0143], [0128], [0132]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Balu the assembling a local high-definition map, receiving a plurality of path histories wherein each path history comprises set of location points an entity consecutively traversed, constructing, based on the plurality of path histories an initial undirected graph, intersection nodes, each location node corresponds to one of the location points, each intersection node corresponds to an intersection point of two of the path histories, and edges are defined between location nodes corresponding to adjacent location points of one of the path histories, and in case of an intersection node, edges are defined between the intersection node and location nodes corresponding to location points of each of the respective two path histories between which location points the respective intersection point lies as taught by Mao.
One would be motivated to modify Balu in view of Mao for the reasons stated in Mao paragraph [0051], more robust map making, navigation experiences (e.g., especially for cheaper user devices which may have lower quality GPS or other positioning systems), location intelligence, improved autonomous driving or highly assisted driving; and improved last mile solution for a trip.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Balu, and Mau, in view of UCAR et al., US 20220289240, herein further known as Ucar.
Regarding clam 7, the combination of Balu and Mao disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Balu does not explicitly state path histories are received via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) messages.
Ucar teaches path histories are received via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) messages (¶ [0031], V2X messages to the ego vehicle that describe information (e.g., path history data)).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Balu the path histories are received via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) messages as taught by Ucar.
One would be motivated to modify Balu in view of Ucar for the reasons stated in Ucar paragraph [0025], more robust system and methods to improve awareness of the environment. Furthermore, more robust system and methods including a V2X vehicular network improve the operation of the legacy vehicle(s), which in turn increases the safety of the sensor rich vehicle(s) traveling in a vicinity of the legacy vehicle (¶ [0102]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 8, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TRAN, US 20210108926, herein further known as Tran.
Regarding claim 8, Tran discloses a system for providing map-related information (¶¶ [0071-0072], [0168]) for a traffic safety application (¶ [0068]), the system adapted for receiving; digital map data, and a location of an object (¶ [0182]), the system comprising: a map-matching module (¶¶ [0182-0183]) adapted for calculating map-matched location information (¶ [0182], processes (i.e. calculating) obstacle locations) based on the location of the object and the digital map data (¶ [0182], matching to road in digital map), and an object database connected to the map-matching module (¶ [0180], update precision maps (i.e. map database)), wherein the object database is adapted for storing the location of the object and a map-matched information of the object calculated by the map-matching module (¶¶ [0180-0183]).
Regarding claim 10, Tran discloses all elements of claim 8 above.
Tran discloses further location of the object is provided by a remote vehicle and/or by an ego-positioning sub-system connected to the object database and/or to the map-matching module (¶ [0168], see also FIG 7A, process checks sensors for object detection, then checks for confirmations from other vehicles over V2V communication).
Regarding claim 12, Tran discloses all elements of claim 8 above.
Tran discloses further map-aware filters adapted to classify objects of which data is stored in the objects database based on their relevance to an entity hosting the system (¶ [0066], sensor fusion algorithm 744 may include, for example, a Kalman filter… to provide various assessments based on the data from the sensor system, ¶ [0118], scene filtering).
Regarding claim 13, Tran discloses all elements of claim 12 above.
Tran discloses further classification of objects by map-aware filters are performed based on a distance of the location of the object and the location of the entity hosting the system (¶ [0152]).
Regarding claim 14, Tran discloses all elements of claim 8 above.
Tran discloses further object database in a communication connection with a map-aware application, wherein the map-aware application is a forward collision warning module (¶¶ [0026-0028], [0251]), an intersection movement assist module, and/or a context-based prioritization module.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of BUSH et al., US 20200393252, herein further known as Bush.
Regarding claim 11, Tran discloses all elements of claim 8 above.
Tran discloses the map-matching module (¶¶ [0182-0183]).
However, Tran does not explicitly state an object prioritization module adapted for determining objects for which a map-matching is to be performed by the map-matching module, in connection with the map matching.
Bush teaches an object prioritization module (¶¶ [0077], [0080], prioritization logic 106, see also FIG. 5) adapted for determining objects for which a map-matching (¶¶ [0014], common feature… generating a merged map including the common object, [0077], [0080], merged map) is to be performed by the map-matching module (¶¶ [0076], [0081], merging module 104, see also FIG. 5), in connection with the map matching (¶¶ [0014], [0077], [0080]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Tran the an object prioritization module adapted for determining objects for which a map-matching is to be performed by the map-matching module, in connection with the map matching as taught by Bush. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Tran, and Bush.
One would be motivated to modify Tran in view of Bush for the reasons stated in Bush paragraph [0048], more robust method for generation of a merged map, maps of various types which can have differing levels of complexity, detail, size, area and other characteristics and include greater amount or level of detail and accuracy of information presented by the map.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of system and method for generating a map and/or merging maps, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Examiners Note: The best prior art available is believed to be Balu in view of Mao, as cited above. However the cited art does not fully disclose or suggest each and every feature of claim(s) 2-6. Accordingly, claim(s) 2-6 appear(s) to contain allowable subject matter in view of the available prior art.
It should be noted that this is in view of the prior art only. The claim rejections under 35 USC § 101, and 35 USC § 112, which are detailed above, must be overcome before a notice of allowance can be considered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666