DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 03/17/2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are pending. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Claim 10 has been added. Claims 1, 5-6 and 8-9 have been amended. The objections to claims 8 and 9 have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter which have been considered and addressed as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
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.
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(s) 1, 3, 5-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Guberman (US 20230136710 A1) in view of Dannenbring (US10764713B2).
Regarding claim 1, Guberman teaches map generation apparatus (par. 5, "a system for enriching a navigational map using previously captured images may include at least one processor”) comprising:
a camera configured to detect an exterior environment situation of a subject vehicle (par. 76, "an autonomous vehicle may include a camera and a processing unit that analyzes visual information captured from the environment of the vehicle");
and a microprocessor (Fig. 1, processing unit 110) and a memory coupled to the microprocessor (Fig. 1, one or more memory units 140, 150), wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform:
recognizing a surrounding environment based on detection data of the camera (Fig. 1, image processor 190);
generating a map based on recognition information acquired in the recognizing (par 66, "FIG. 35 is a flowchart showing an exemplary process for automatically generating a navigational map relative to one or more road segments, consistent with the disclosed embodiments”);
estimating a position of the subject vehicle on the map (par. 88, "Position sensor 130 may include any type of device suitable for determining a location associated with at least one component of system 100"; par. 312, "The localization of vehicle may be corrected or adjusted by image observations of landmarks");
determining completion or incompletion of the map (par. 406, "server 3301 may be configured to determine that the existing map data of a region may be inadequate (e.g., does not include certain details regarding a road feature associated with a road segment in the region)”);
and storing map information indicating the map (Fig. 35 step 3506, updating a navigational map based on collected navigational information), wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform the generating including:
generating the map of a driving section based on the recognition information (Fig. 35 step 3506, updating a navigational map based on collected navigational information);
storing, in the memory, the map information corresponding to a completion section determined that the map is complete (Fig. 35 step 3506, updating a navigational map based on collected navigational information; par. 406, "server 3301 may be configured to determine that the existing map data of a region may be inadequate (e.g., does not include certain details regarding a road feature associated with a road segment in the region)”—if the server does not determine that the map data is inadequate, then the map is complete);
and storing, in the memory, section information indicating an incompletion section determined that the map is incomplete, together with position information indicating the position of the subject vehicle (par. 406, " server 3301 may be configured to determine that the existing map data of a region may be inadequate (e.g., does not include certain details regarding a road feature associated with a road segment in the region). By way of example, server 3301 may be configured to determine a particular road segment (e.g., 1 km in length) that may need accurate alignment. Server 3301 may also be configured to determine a geographical region of interest (e.g., a square or circle that covers the road segment). As another example, server 3301 may determine to update map information of a region and may designate the region as a geographical region of interest”),
the generating further including:
when the subject vehicle travels next time on the incompletion section, generating a map of the incompletion section based on the recognition information acquired based on the detection data of the sensor camera (par. 411, “At step 3504, in response to the determination that the location of the host vehicle is at or within the predetermined distance from the geographical region of interest, second navigational information associated with the environment traversed by the host vehicle may be collected”);
adding map information indicating the map of the incompletion section to the map information stored in the memory; and rewriting the section information stored in the memory (par. 420, “At step 3505, at least one of the collected first navigational information or the collected second navigational information from the host vehicle may be uploaded”),
and the determining including identifying, as a specific lane, a driving lane on which the subject vehicle has traveled, based on the position of the subject vehicle estimated in the incompletion section (par. 411, "At step 3504, in response to the determination that the location of the host vehicle is at or within the predetermined distance from the geographical region of interest, second navigational information associated with the environment traversed by the host vehicle may be collected"),
and the microprocessor is configured to further perform determining whether the subject vehicle is traveling on the incompletion section based on the section information (par. 411, "At step 3504, in response to the determination that the location of the host vehicle is at or within the predetermined distance from the geographical region of interest, second navigational information associated with the environment traversed by the host vehicle may be collected"),
Guberman fails to teach when determining that the subject vehicle is traveling on the incompletion section, outputting information indicating a lane in which the subject vehicle should travel to an external device so that the specific lane is included in an angle of view of the camera. Instead, Guberman only teaches increasing the amount of images taken when travelling through an incomplete area (par. 390, “The second navigational information may be collected at a second density level that may greater than the first density level”), and takes these images when it is determined the vehicle will go through the incomplete area. Guberman does not teach indicating a vehicle should travel to a specific place in order to complete the incomplete area.
However, Dannenbring teaches when determining that the subject vehicle is traveling on the incompletion section, outputting information indicating a lane in which the subject vehicle should travel to an external device so that the specific lane is included in an angle of view of the camera (column 11 line 13, “The mobile device 122 may plan a route through a road system, or modify a current route through a road system in response to the request for additional observations of the road object. For example, when the mobile device 122 determines that there are two or more alternatives for the optimum route and one of the routes passes the initial observation point, the mobile device 122 selects the alternative that passes the initial observation point. The mobile devices 122 may compare the optimal route to the closest route that passes the initial observation point. In response, the mobile device 122 may modify the optimal route to pass the initial observation point”).
Dannenbring teaches sending a vehicle to areas that are determined to need additional observations in order to update a geographic database. This method would include sending a vehicle to an incomplete section in order to use a camera (column 2 line 64, “an image capture system such as a camera”) to collect data (column 3 line 5, “Data collected by the sensor array may update or supplement a geographic database”), therefore the vehicle would need to be controlled so the camera can collect the needed information, which could include a specific lane.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guberman to incorporate the teachings of Dannenbring in order to collect geographic data for use by vehicles (column 1 lines 12-32).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 1. Guberman further teaches the microprocessor is configured to perform the determining including determining the incompletion, in a case where the recognition information is insufficient in either information about a driving lane adjacent to a driving lane on which the subject vehicle travels or information about a ground object on a side of a road on which the subject vehicle travels (par. 455, "For example, if data associated with a particular feature has been collected below a threshold number of times, this may indicate a need for additional data. As another example, if image data associated with a feature is of poor quality (e.g., blurry, at a bad or alternate angle, etc.), this may trigger a need for additional image data"; par. 455, "a feature may refer to any object or element within an environment of a vehicle for which image data may be captured. For example, this may include road signs, lane markings, buildings, lamp posts, highway exit ramps, traffic lights, hazardous objects, and the like").
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 1. Guberman fails to teach the microprocessor is configured to perform the determining including further identifying whether a driving lane on which the subject vehicle travels next time corresponds to the specific lane or a driving lane adjacent to the specific lane, based on the recognition information, when the subject vehicle travels next time in the incompletion section, and the generating including generating the map only for the specific lane in accordance with an identification result of the specific lane. Guberman instead only teaches the navigational information for the incomplete section (the second navigational information) is used more than the other navigational information (par. 428, “In some embodiments, server 3301 may use more resources to process or use the second navigational information as compared to when server 3301 processes or uses the first navigational information”).
However, Dannenbring more explicitly teaches the microprocessor is configured to perform the determining including further identifying whether a driving lane on which the subject vehicle travels next time corresponds to the specific lane or a driving lane adjacent to the specific lane, based on the recognition information, when the subject vehicle travels next time in the incompletion section (column 11 line 13, “The mobile device 122 may plan a route through a road system, or modify a current route through a road system in response to the request for additional observations of the road object”—the planned route would include which lanes to travel through in order to gather the required additional observations), and the generating including generating the map only for the specific lane in accordance with an identification result of the specific lane (Fig. 2 step S109 and S110, additional observations are not used).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guberman to incorporate the teachings of Dannenbring in order to collect geographic data for use by vehicles (column 1 lines 12-32).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 1. Guberman further teaches the microprocessor is configured to further perform outputting, to an external device, specific lane information indicating the specific lane in the incompletion section (par. 420, “At step 3505, at least one of the collected first navigational information or the collected second navigational information from the host vehicle may be uploaded”—Guberman outputs information regarding the incomplete section, which would include specific lane information).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 6. Guberman fails to teach the specific lane information includes information for requesting the driver to drive on the specific lane or a driving lane different from the specific lane.
However, Dannenbring teaches the specific lane information includes information for requesting the driver to drive on the specific lane or a driving lane different from the specific lane (column 11 line 13, “The mobile device 122 may plan a route through a road system, or modify a current route through a road system in response to the request for additional observations of the road object”—the planned route which lane to travel through in order to gather the required additional observations).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guberman to incorporate the teachings of Dannenbring in order to collect geographic data for use by vehicles (column 1 lines 12-32).
Regarding claim 9, Guberman teaches map generation system comprising: a map generation apparatus according to claim 1;
and an external server (fig. 33, server 3301) configured to be communicable with the subject vehicle, wherein the microprocessor is a first microprocessor (Fig. 1, processing unit 110), the memory is a first memory (Fig. 1, one or more memory units 140, 150), and the external server comprises:
a second microprocessor and a second memory coupled to the second microprocessor (par. 271, servers include processor and memory), wherein the second memory stores the recognition information acquired by the subject vehicle and another vehicle (Fig. 33 one or more vehicles 3302 and 3302) and the map information generated by the subject vehicle and the other vehicle, and the second microprocessor is configured to perform providing at least one of the subject vehicle and the other vehicle with at least one of the recognition information and the map information stored in the second memory (par. 389, “Server 3301 may be configured to receive the first and/or second navigational information associated with the environment traversed by vehicle 3302”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring, and further in view of Kitahara (US 20210199463 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 1. Guberman further teaches the microprocessor is configured to further perform conducting self-driving control for automatically controlling at least acceleration and deceleration of the subject vehicle, with the map information stored in the memory (par. 128, "For example, based on analysis of images acquired by image capture devices 122, 124, and/or 126, system 100 may provide control signals to one or more of throttling system 220, braking system 230, and steering system 240 to navigate vehicle 200 (e.g., by causing an acceleration, a turn, a lane shift, etc.)");
and inputting information indicating that a degeneration control of the self-driving control has been conducted or that an intervention of driving operation by a driver of the subject vehicle has been conducted (par. 265, “In some embodiments, the server may analyze driver interventions during the autonomous driving. The server may analyze data received from the vehicle at the time and location where intervention occurs, and/or data received prior to the time the intervention occurred. The server may identify certain portions of the data that caused or are closely related to the intervention, for example, data indicating a temporary lane closure setup, data indicating a pedestrian in the road”),
Both Guberman in view of Dannenbring fail to teach the microprocessor is configured to perform the determining including determining the incompletion, when the information is input while the self-driving control is being conducted.
However, Kitahara teaches inputting information indicating that a degeneration control of the self-driving control has been conducted or that an intervention of driving operation by a driver of the subject vehicle has been conducted, and the microprocessor is configured to perform the determining including determining the incompletion, when the information is input while the self-driving control is being conducted (par. 211, “The provisionally distributed map is verified, for example, whether it can be used for automatic control in a plurality of vehicles. For example, the main processor 40 of each vehicle verifies the temporary map based on whether or not the position shift is detected when the position of the own vehicle is calculated using the temporary map data, whether or not the driver's operation intervention is performed, and so on”).
Kitahara discloses a map generation system that uses probe data from multiple vehicles to create and update a map. The collected map data is verified before being used by other autonomous vehicles, so therefore the map should only be verified if it is usable by autonomous vehicles.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring to incorporate the teachings of Kitahara. The goal of the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring would be to generate a map that can be used by the autonomous vehicle, so therefore is obvious that the generated map should also be usable to autonomous vehicles. Unusable sections should not be considered completed because a vehicle wouldn’t be able to use the map to drive. It would be an obvious improvement to consider areas that could not be traversed using autonomous driving alone as areas that are inadequate (Guberman par. 406, "server 3301 may be configured to determine that the existing map data of a region may be inadequate).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring, and further in view of Ayyalasomayajula (US 20220404167 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 6. Both Guberman and Dannenbring fail to teach the specific lane information includes information for requesting the driver to travel next time on a day of a week or a time different from a day or a time when the subject vehicle has been traveled on the specific lane.
However, Ayyalasomayajula teaches the specific lane information includes information for requesting the driver to travel next time on a day of a week or a time different from a day or a time when the subject vehicle has been traveled on the specific lane (par. 56, “The request may include a request for an alternate data to reason or resolve the occluded area in response to the determination of the location of the occluded area. The additional data may include additional photographs of the occluded area take during different seasons, time of day, time of year or the like. The additional data may include mapping data captured by mapping vehicles traveling with the occluded area. The additional data may include vehicle location, velocity, direction, or other telemetry data crowdsourced from multiple vehicles travelling in the occluded area”—although Ayyalasomayajula discloses aerial images taken at different times, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that this could be done with mapping vehicles as well).
Ayyalasomayajula relates to a method for updating a map. When an occluded area prevents a map from being updated, a request is sent to receive alternative data in order to update the map.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring to incorporate the teachings of Ayyalasomayajula. Ayyalasomayajula discloses “[T]he different timing may resolve issues within shadows where the different time is a different time of day or foliage where the different timing is a different season” (par. 68). Gathering sensor data at a different time would possibly make an occluded area no longer occluded. In terms of the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring, it would be obvious that waiting until a different day or time could lead to a different situation, and possibly better quality images.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring teaches the map generation apparatus according to claim 1. Both Guberman and Dannenbring fail to teach the microprocessor is configured to further perform when determining that the subject vehicle is traveling on the incompletion section, outputting an instruction to change an imaging direction to the camera so that the specific lane is included in an angle of view of the camera.
Guberman instead only teaches data can be considered incomplete due to a bad angle (par. 455, “if image data associated with a feature is of poor quality (e.g., blurry, at a bad or alternate angle, etc.), this may trigger a need for additional image data”), but does not explicitly teach trying to fix this angle next time a vehicle collects image data.
However, Ayyalasomayajula teaches the microprocessor is configured to further perform when determining that the subject vehicle is traveling on the incompletion section, outputting an instruction to change an imaging direction to the camera so that the specific lane is included in an angle of view of the camera (par. 43, “a request may be made for an aerial image of the same location taken from a different angle, at a different time of day or different time of year. This alternate aerial image may provide a clearer view of the roadway”).
Ayyalasomayajula relates to a method for updating a map. When an occluded area prevents a map from being updated, a request is sent to receive alternative data in order to update the map.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring to incorporate the teachings of Ayyalasomayajula. Ayyalasomayajula discloses “This alternate aerial image may provide a clearer view of the roadway” (par. 43). Gathering sensor data at a different angle would possibly make an occluded area no longer occluded. In terms of the combination of Guberman in view of Dannenbring, it would be obvious that changing the angle of a camera could lead to better quality images.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights