DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
page 8: the contents of the map-matching results sharing message are confusing. The paragraph before the list of the contents discuss the computation of a corrected location of the ego-vehicle 10. However, the list of data in the message has the following:
an identifier of a matched object, e.g., a station ID of a matched vehicle,
an identifier of the matched map object, e.g., a road segment,
a corrected location of a traffic participant entity being map-matched, e.g., a location of a remote vehicle 46 projected on the matched road segment, and
an identifier of the map provider 24.
So the question is—whatever has happened to the corrected location of the ego-vehicle? And where is the remote vehicle coming from?
Page 10: in the third paragraph, there is the phrase: “or the corresponding data can be updated with the newly performed map-matching”. What corresponding data? Is this the obsolete data of remote vehicle 4 in the database?
Page 12: in the third paragraph, there is the mention “the map-matching results sharing entity is a second map provider 56.” This should be mention “the map-matching results sharing entity 60 is a second map provider 56.”
Page 14: in the first complete paragraph is the phrase “—ata high probability—” which should be “—at a high probability—”. A few sentences later is the phrase: “It is to be noted, that if the sharing entity and the receiving entity does not use a same or a compatible map…” which should be “It is to be noted, that if the sharing entity and the receiving entity does not use the same or a compatible map…”
Page 15: second paragraph: “…further connecting nodes are searched for, until no more connecting link is found that fits the criteria..” should be ”…further connecting nodes are searched for, until no more connecting links are found that fit the criteria..”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…wherein the networking stack is adapted to communicate on one or more networking protocols.” should be “…wherein the networking stack is adapted to communicate using one or more networking protocols.”
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) are: “map-matching module”, “map-matching result sharing module”, “ego-positioning sub-system”, and “map-matching results verification module” in claims 1-13.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 § 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 1-20 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 limitation “a map-matching module” in claims 1,5,6,7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This is interpreted as “a module for map-matching.” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification on page 6 defines the map-matching module as “a functional module of the system according to the invention that performs map-matching. The map-matching can be performed with any map-matching algorithm known in the art.” The specification fails to explain precisely how “any map-matching algorithm known in the art” works, plus there is no explanation of the computer physical support being used to carry out the algorithm. Therefore, the claim 1, 5, 6, and 7 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a map-matching result sharing module” in claims 1, 9, 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This is interpreted as “a module for sharing result of a map-matching.” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification on page 6 defines the map-matching result sharing module as “A functional module that takes the results of a map-matching and assembles a message, e.g., a map-matching results sharing message.” The rest of the paragraph states a list of where “the map-matching results sharing message can include one or more pieces of the following data…” but does not state that any of the data are essential, thus rendering the definition even more indefinite. Furthermore, there is no explanation of any computer physical support. Therefore, the claims 1, 9, and 12 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “an ego-positioning sub-system” in claims 2-4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This is interpreted as “a sub-system for determining position of an ego-vehicle.” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification on pages 5-6 defines the ego-positioning sub-system as “A functional module that is adapted for computing a geographical location of a hosting vehicle (i.e., an ego-vehicle 10). The ego positioning sub-system 20 combines input from various low level location services like a GNSS 12 (Global Navigation Satellite System), an RTKS 14 (Real Time Kinematic System) and a DR (Dead Reckoning) algorithm 16 to compute a high precision location of the ego-vehicle 10.” Exactly which location services are being used remain undefined. Furthermore, there is no explanation of any computer physical support. Therefore, the claims 2-4 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a map-matching verification module” in claims 8 and 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This is interpreted as “a module to verify map-matching” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification on page 7 defines the map-matching result verification module as “A functional module of a receiving entity 44. The map-matching result verification module 52 is adapted to handle a received map-matching results sharing message..” Further on page 12, the specification states “…a map-matching result verification module 52 to compare the map provider 24 of the receiving entity 44 and the map provider 24 of the map-matching result sharing entity 60.” On page 13 there is the statement “The map-matching result verification module 52 consults with its map provider 24 (a
first map provider 54) through the map consolidation API 58 and requests the translation of the remote map data source identifier received.” This reads like an algorithm but does not state in detail the individual steps. Furthermore, there is no explanation of any computer physical support. Therefore, the claims 8 and 13 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 13-20 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 13 is ambiguous because it refers to “a link distance threshold”. There is no definition in the specification as to how this should be calculated. However, in a graph which is formed of links and nodes, there are two different methods by which a distance is calculated: (1) distance is measured by the minimum number of links required to traverse from A to B, or (2) a minimum weighted sum, where each link forming the path between A and B has its own separate weight contributing to the sum. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that link distance is determined by a minimum weighted sum.
Claim 17 refers to “a node distance threshold” which is similarly ambiguous. Does it refer to the number of links between two nodes? Or does it refer to a weighted sum of the links? For purposes of examination, it is assumed that link distance is determined by a minimum weighted sum.
(Claims 14-16, and 18-20 are similarly rejected under 112b due to their dependences upon claim 13 and/or claim 17.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) recite software per se.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed toward abstract ideas without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system which may be simply software per se since it uses terms such as a “map-matching module” and “map-matching result sharing module”. Therefore, claim 1 as written is not within one of the four statutory categories. For compact prosecution, it is assumed that this problem will be solved in the next amendment from the applicant, since even if claim 1 is considered to be within one of the statutory categories further inspection shows claim remains ineligible under 101.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A system for sharing a map-matching result, comprising
a map-matching module adapted for
receiving a digital map data from a map provider,
receiving a location information,
performing a map-matching on the received location information using the digital map data [mental process/step], and
generating a map-matched location information [mental process/step], and
a map-matching result sharing module that is connected to the map-matching module, wherein the map-matching result sharing module is adapted for
receiving the map-matched location information from the map-matching module, and
assembling a message [mental process/step] including the map-matched location information as a map-matching result to be shared.
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, “performing a map-matching…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A system for sharing a map-matching result, comprising
a map-matching module adapted for
receiving a digital map data from a map provider [pre-solution activity (data gathering)],
receiving a location information [pre-solution activity (data gathering)],
performing a map-matching on the received location information using the digital map data [mental process/step], and
generating a map-matched location information [mental process/step], and
a map-matching result sharing module that is connected to the map-matching module, wherein the map-matching result sharing module is adapted for
receiving the map-matched location information from the map-matching module [data gathering], and
assembling a message [mental process/step] including the map-matched location information as a map-matching result to be shared (note that this is not a control step, nor is sharing in fact carried out. Note that simply displaying or storing the result would be considered insignificant post-solution activity) .
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 “receiving a digital map…,” “receiving a location information …,” and “receiving the map-matched location information…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use what read as software modules to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps at the beginning and just before the message assembly are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, nothing is done with the result. The assembly of a message is recited at a high-level of generality. The message is not used for any control of the system.
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. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of receiving particular pieces of data amount to nothing more than mere data gathering; the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application Claims 2-5 add further data gathering. Claim 6 adds a database, but this can be interpreted simply as an interim location used in I/O of the result from the judicial exception (and can be considered saying “apply the abstract idea using a computer”, which is considered insufficiently practical).Claim 7 give further details on the database I/O. Claim 8 adds another piece of what looks to be software. Claims 9-12 add more details as to the I/O (using a network stack, using a CAM message format, etc.) Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 13-20:
Claim 13: 101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a method for receiving and matching shared map-matched location information with a local map. Therefore, claim 13 as written is within one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 13 recites:
A method for receiving a shared map-matched location information and matching the shared map-matched location information with a local map having a local map data source identifier by a receiving entity, wherein the local map comprises links and nodes, wherein the map-matched location information is received in a form of a message comprising
a map data source identifier, and
a link identifier corresponding to the map-matched location information,
the method comprising the steps of
comparing the map data source identifier with the local map data source identifier [mental process/step], by a map-matching result verification module,
in case the map data source identifier and the local map data source identifier are
compatible (condition),
returning the link identifier as a match of the received map-matching
location information [mental process/step], and
in case the map data source identifier and the local map data source identifier are not
compatible (condition),
defining, in a definition step, a link distance threshold, [mental process/step],
compiling a set of candidate links [mental process/step], by selecting links within the link distance threshold from a location corresponding to the map-matched location information, and
iterating, in an iteration step, through each element of the set of candidate links[mental process/step], to find a candidate link as the match of the received map-matching location information.
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, “comparing the map data source identifier with the local map data source identifier…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at entries on two lists and forming a simple judgement. “returning the link identifier” can mean scrawling the ID number on a piece of paper. “defining…a link distance threshold” can be a mental estimate. “compiling a set of set of candidate links by selecting links within the link distance threshold” also can be done mentally by a human looking at a map. Finally, iterating through each element of the set of candidate links to find a matched candidate link can also be done in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
Claim 13: A method for receiving a shared map-matched location information and matching the shared map-matched location information with a local map having a local map data source identifier by a receiving entity, wherein the local map comprises links and nodes (definition of local maps), wherein the map-matched location information is received in a form of a message (data gathering) comprising
a map data source identifier (gathered data), and
a link identifier corresponding to the map-matched location information (gathered data),
the method comprising the steps of
comparing the map data source identifier with the local map data source identifier [mental process/step], by a map-matching result verification module,
in case the map data source identifier and the local map data source identifier are
compatible (condition),
returning the link identifier as a match of the received map-matching
location information [mental process/step], and
in case the map data source identifier and the local map data source identifier are not
compatible (condition),
defining, in a definition step, a link distance threshold, [mental process/step],
compiling a set of candidate links [mental process/step], by selecting links within the link distance threshold from a location corresponding to the map-matched location information, and
iterating, in an iteration step, through each element of the set of candidate links[mental process/step], to find a candidate link as the match of the received map-matching location information.
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 limitation of “…wherein the local map comprises links and nodes”, this is no more than a definition of local maps. “…wherein the map-matched location information is received in a form of a message “, this is data gathering, with both “…a map data source identifier…” and “…a link identifier corresponding to the map-matched location information…” being gathered data.
The examiner submits that these above limitations are either the listing of the data gathered or the insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering the data. Lastly, nothing is done with the result. After a matching link is found (mental step) through an iterative process, the claim stops. The link is not used to control the system, or an ego- vehicle, or a remote vehicle.
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. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of receiving particular pieces of data amount to nothing more than mere data gathering; the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 14-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application Claims 14 discusses the use of a predetermined compatibility table when carrying out the comparison, but this can also be done by a human looking at a printed copy of said table while carrying out the mental comparison. Claim 15 gives another condition under which map-matching on the local map will occur. Claim 16 contains further steps while iterating which can be classified as more mental steps. Claim 17 introduces another parameter (node distance) in what can be classified as a mental step, followed by its use in more mental steps. Claim 18 introduces another parameter (cost function) being defined in a mental step (which could be scrawling out a cost function on a piece of paper), followed by the mental step of calculating a cost value. Claim 19 is the calculation (which again can be done using pen and paper) corresponding to a specific cost function. Claim 20 is a “non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 13.” This is no more than saying “apply the judicial exception of claim 13 using this part of a generic computer.” Therefore, dependent claims 14-20are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 13.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being clearly anticipated by US Pub. 2021/0254983. (Wheeler et al., hence Wheeler.)
As for claim 1, Wheeler teaches a system for sharing a map-matching result, comprising: a map-matching module adapted for - receiving a digital map data from a map provider, ("When new data is available from the various vehicles within a fleet, this can be updated in a local representation of the occupancy map and can be passed to the online HD map system ( e.g., in the cloud) for updating the master occupancy map shared by all of the vehicles."[0006]; "The vehicle 150 obtains 906 a set of represented objects ( e.g., landmarks represented on the LMap) based on the current location of the vehicle. For example, the vehicle 150 queries its current location in the HD map data stored in the local HD map store 275 on the vehicle to find the set of represented objects located within a predetermined region surrounding the vehicle's current location."[0083)
receiving a location information ("For each determined object, the vehicle 150 may also determine information associated with the object such as a distance of the object away from the current location, a location of the object, a geometric shape of the object, and the like."[0082])
performing a map-matching on the received location information using the digital map data ("The vehicle 150 determines 910 if there are any matches between the objects it detected and those on the map based on the comparison."[0085]), and
a map-matching result sharing module that is connected to the map-matching module, wherein the map-matching result sharing module is adapted for receiving the map-matched location information from the map- matching module, ("A match record is a type of a landmark map verification record. A match record corresponds to a particular represented object in the landmark map stored in the local HD map store 275 that is determined to match an object detected by the vehicle, which can be referred to as "a verified represented object." The match record includes the current location of the vehicle 150 and a current timestamp." [0086]) and assembling a message including the map-matched location information as a map-matching result to be shared. ("The map discrepancy module 290 may construct the update message, which may comprise a vehicle identifier (ID), one or more timestamps, a route traveled, lane element IDs of lane elements traversed, a type of discrepancy, a magnitude of discrepancy, a discrepancy fingerprint to help identify duplicate discrepancy alert messages, a size of message, and so on.” [0055])
As for claim 2, Wheeler teaches comprising an ego-positioning sub-system connected to the map-matching module to provide location information of an ego-vehicle to the map-matching module. ("The localization APIs 250 determine the current location of the vehicle, for example, when the vehicle starts and as the vehicle moves along a route. The localization APIs 250 include a localize API that determines an accurate location of the vehicle within the HD Map." [0049])
As for claim 3, Wheeler teaches wherein the ego-positioning sub- system is in connection with a GNSS and/or an RTKS. ("The localize API receives inputs comprising one or more of, location provided by GPS, vehicle motion data provided by IMU, LIDAR scanner data, and camera images." [0049]; GPS is part of GNSS.)
As for claim 5, Wheeler teaches wherein the map-matching module is adapted to receive the location information from a remote vehicle. ("When new data is available from the various vehicles within a fleet, this can be updated in a local representation of the occupancy map and can be passed to the online HD map system ( e.g., in the cloud) for updating the master occupancy map shared by all of the vehicles."[0006].)
As for claim 6, Wheeler teaches comprising a map-matched objects database adapted for storing map-matched location information, wherein the map-matched objects database is connected to the map-matching module. ("The vehicle 150 fetches 1142 occupancy mapdata based on the current location from the occupancy map database 1168."[0126] ; "The landmark map includes representations of driving paths (e.g., lanes, yield lines, safely navigable space, driveways, unpaved roads, etc.), pedestrian paths (e.g., cross walks, sidewalks, etc.), and landmark objects (e.g., road signs, buildings, etc.)"[0065])
As for claim 7, Wheeler teaches wherein the map-matched objects database is in a bidirectional connection with the map-matching module. (This is known in the art. It means that data is allowed to flow in both directions between the map-matching module and the map-matched objects database, [0084]-[0085])
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of “Dead Reckoning” (attached as NPL-Furuno.pdf, henceforth “Furuno”.
As for claim 4, Wheeler does not specifically teach wherein the ego-positioning sub-system is adapted to receive input from a DR algorithm, but this is known in the art. See Furuno, which discusses use of its Dead Reckoning Receivers together with GPS (GNSS) (pg. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the use of Furuno’s Dead Reckoning Receivers in the system of Wheeler. The motivation would be, as Furuno mentions, to achieve high accuracy positioning in urban canyons.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Wikipedia: Protocol Stack” (attached as NPL-wiki-protocol.pdf, henceforth “Protocol”.)
As for claim 9, Wheeler does not specifically teach a networking stack connected to the map-matching result sharing module to receive the message including the map-matched location information, wherein the networking stack is adapted to sharing a message with one or more receiving entities, wherein the message is assembled by the networking stack based on the message including the map-matched location information. However, networking stacks being used to transfer messages are known in the art. See Protocol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use protocol stacks in order to manage the transmission of messages. The motivation would be to be able to handle message sending between different entities.
As for claim 10, Wheeler, as modified by Protocol, teaches wherein the networking stack is adapted to communicate on one or more networking protocols. (This is how a protocol stack works. See Protocol and the use of the spanning layer.)
As for claim 11, Wheeler, as modified by Protocol, teaches wherein the networking stack is adapted to communicate with multiple receiving entities simultaneously. (Known in the art. See Protocol, specifically the example given in “General protocol suite description”.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Experimental Evaluation of CAM and DENM Messaging Services in Vehicular Communications” (attached as NPL-Santa.pdf, henceforth “Santa”.).
As for claim 12, Wheeler does not specifically teach wherein the message assembled by the map-matching result sharing module is a CAM message or a BSM message. However, this is known in the art (see Santa Sections 2.1, 4.1, and Fig. 1 which explain the CAM architecture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the CAM standards defined by ETSI to create CAM messages in the system of Wheeler. The motivation would be to implement cooperative applications in vehicular scenarios via exchanging CAM messages.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the rejection under 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 8, and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the rejection under 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664