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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/912, 737 filed on 10/11/2024.
• Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made NON-FINAL.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/912, 737 filed on 10/11/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following: Claim 19 is directed towards a vehicle but it is dependent on claim 11 which is directed towards a vehicle control system. Therefore, claim 19 appears to be directed towards two separate (but not distinct) inventions. It is recommended that the claim 19 should be re-write so that it is in independent form and includes all the limitations from claim 11.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: control unit, processing unit in claims 11-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1, 11 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1 is directed towards a method, claim 11 is directed towards a machine.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claims 1, 11 recite “generating an egress route graph based on the map data and the target off-ramp, the egress route graph comprising a plurality of egress route nodes and a plurality of egress route edges, wherein: the plurality of egress route edges includes lane direction edges based on the lane numbers and the lane relationship information of the plurality of links and lane change edges corresponding to lane changes between lanes of the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway, and each egress route node of the plurality of egress route nodes defines a start and an end of the lane direction edges based on the geographic positions of the plurality of links; assigning to each egress route edge a confidence value indicative of an existence probability of each egress route edge and a cost value indicative of a cost of traversing each egress route edge; and determining the egress route, the egress route corresponding to a path through the egress route graph to the target off-ramp having an optimized total confidence value and an optimized total cost value”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person utilizing a pen and paper to draw an egress route graph based on the map data and the target off-ramp using a plurality of egress route nodes and a plurality of egress route edges and each egress route node of the plurality of egress route nodes defines a start and an end of the lane direction edges, then assigning to each egress route edge a confidence value indicative of an existence probability of each egress route edge and a cost value indicative of a cost of traversing each egress route edge; and determining the egress route, the egress route corresponding to a path through the egress route graph to the target off-ramp having an optimized total confidence value and an optimized total cost value. Thus, the claims 1, 11 recite a mental process.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements of obtaining map data regarding the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant post-solution activity. Accordingly, the generating an exit route map is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 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. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claims 2-10, 12-19.
Claim 2-8, 12-16 merely further specifies how to assign to each egress route edge a confidence value. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person utilizing a pen and paper to draw an egress route graph based on the map data and the target off-ramp using a plurality of egress route nodes and a plurality of egress route edges and each egress route node of the plurality of egress route nodes defines a start and an end of the lane direction edges, then assigning to each egress route edge a confidence value. These claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Claim 9-10, 17-18 merely further specifies how to update the egress route graph based on sensor data, determining a shortest path through the egress route graph, generating, for each link not including a lane number, a number of lane direction edges, and generating lane change edges. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person utilizing a pen and paper to draw an egress route graph based on the map data and the target off-ramp using a plurality of egress route nodes and a plurality of egress route edges and each egress route node of the plurality of egress route nodes defines a start and an end of the lane direction edges, then update the egress route graph based on sensor data, determining a shortest path through the egress route graph, generating, for each link not including a lane number, a number of lane direction edges, and generating lane change edges. These claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 11 and include all the claim limitation of claim 11. Therefore, dependent claim 19 is not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US20170084178A1) in view of VALCHOK (US20210331670A1) and ERIKSSON (US20240425056A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11:
Jain teaches:
A method for determining an egress route for a vehicle to a target off-ramp of an at least partially controlled-access multilane highway, comprising: (Jain, Fig.4B and para [34], “In general, aspects of the invention are used in motorized vehicles to guide a driver to a terminal vehicle configuration according to a lane level routing plan…exiting a highway in the correct off ramp lane”)
generating an egress route graph based on the map data and the target off-ramp, (Jain, Fig.4B and para [57], “plan formulation module 203 may generate lane level routing plan”, para [34], “exiting a highway in the correct off ramp lane”)
and determining the egress route, the egress route corresponding to a path through the egress route graph to the target off-ramp… (Jain, Fig.4B and para [57], “plan formulation module 203 may generate lane level routing plan”, para [34], “exiting a highway in the correct off ramp lane”)
PNG
media_image1.png
595
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jain does not explicitly teach, but VALCHOK teaches:
obtaining map data regarding the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway, the map data being arranged in a plurality of links, each link defining for a corresponding section of the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway a geographic position, (VALCHOK, Fig.6 and para [13], “ the route planner may have access to a road map.”, and para [127], “the first simplified graph-structure 600 has an origin vertex 605 and a destination vertex 608, and two intermediate vertices (not numbered). It can also be seen that the first simplified graph-structure 600 includes three edges (not numbered), each connecting a respective pair of vertices. In this first example, the four vertices of the first simplified graph-structure 600 correspond to four potential locations (not numbered) of the vehicle 220 along a first given road 602”)
PNG
media_image2.png
966
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein at least a subset of the plurality of links includes at least one of a lane number and lane relationship information; (VALCHOK, para[14], “number of lanes, traffic direction of corresponding lanes”, Fig.6 and para [129-130], “the eight vertices of the second simplified graph-structure 620 correspond to eight potential locations (not numbered) of the vehicle 220 along a second given road 622 having two lanes,… an edge 744 is indicative of a transition from (i) the potential location of vehicle 220 on the second given road 622 associated with the vertex 731 to (ii) the potential location of vehicle 220 on the second given road 622 associated with the vertex 736”)
the … route graph comprising a plurality of …route nodes and a plurality of …route edges, (VALCHOK, Fig.6 and para [127], “the first simplified graph-structure 600 has an origin vertex 605 and a destination vertex 608, and two intermediate vertices (not numbered). It can also be seen that the first simplified graph-structure 600 includes three edges (not numbered), each connecting a respective pair of vertices”)
wherein: the plurality of … route edges includes lane direction edges based on the lane numbers and the lane relationship information of the plurality of links and lane change edges corresponding to lane changes between lanes of the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway, (VALCHOK, Fig.6 and para [141], “ it can be said that a given edge in a given graph-structure may be also indicative of a “directionality” of the corresponding transition between the pair of vertices” , para[14], “traffic direction of corresponding lanes”, para [138], “It can be said that the edge 744 is indicative of a transition in which the vehicle 220 is at the potential location of the vertex 731 and performs a “rapid” lane-changing manoeuvre”)
and each …route node of the plurality of … route nodes defines a start and an end of the lane direction edges based on the geographic positions of the plurality of links; (VALCHOK, Fig.6 and para [127], “the first simplified graph-structure 600 has an origin vertex 605 and a destination vertex 608, and two intermediate vertices (not numbered). It can also be seen that the first simplified graph-structure 600 includes three edges (not numbered), each connecting a respective pair of vertices”)
assigning to each route edge …a cost value indicative of a cost of traversing each route edge; (VALCHOK, para [159], “assigns costs to respective edges of a given graph-structure, the electronic device 210 may be configured to determine global penalty scores for respective vertices of the given graph-structure.”)
the route … having an optimized total confidence value and an optimized total cost value.( VALCHOK, para [23], “where the target lane path is associated with a lowest one amongst the first lane path score and the second lane path score”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from VALCHOK in order to include obtaining map data regarding the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway, the map data being arranged in a plurality of links, each link defining for a corresponding section of the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway a geographic position, wherein at least a subset of the plurality of links includes at least one of a lane number and lane relationship information; generating an egress route graph based on the map data and the target off-ramp, the egress route graph comprising a plurality of egress route nodes and a plurality of egress route edges, wherein: the plurality of egress route edges includes lane direction edges based on the lane numbers and the lane relationship information of the plurality of links and lane change edges corresponding to lane changes between lanes of the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway, and each egress route node of the plurality of egress route nodes defines a start and an end of the lane direction edges based on the geographic positions of the plurality of links; assigning to each egress route edge a confidence value indicative of an existence probability of each egress route edge and a cost value indicative of a cost of traversing each egress route edge; and determining the egress route, the egress route corresponding to a path through the egress route graph to the target off-ramp having an optimized total confidence value and an optimized total cost value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to find a “most time efficient route” (VALCHOK, Description).
Jain does not explicitly teach, but ERIKSSON teaches:
assigning to each route edge a confidence value indicative of an existence probability of each route edge (ERIKSSON , para [07], “determining an existence probability for each lane”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from ERIKSSON in order to include assigning to each route edge a confidence value indicative of an existence probability of each route edge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “increasing the accuracy and redundancy in road estimation systems” (ERIKSSON, Description).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13:
Jain in view of VALCHOK, ERIKSSON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jain does not explicitly teach, but ERIKSSON teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein assigning to each egress route edge a confidence value includes assigning to each egress route edge not corresponding to a link including at least one of a lane number and lane relationship information a confidence value indicative of an existence probability of the respective egress route edge. (ERIKSSON , para [07], “determining an existence probability for each lane”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from ERIKSSON in order to include wherein assigning to each egress route edge a confidence value includes assigning to each egress route edge not corresponding to a link including at least one of a lane number and lane relationship information a confidence value indicative of an existence probability of the respective egress route edge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “increasing the accuracy and redundancy in road estimation systems” (ERIKSSON, Description).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14:
Jain in view of VALCHOK, ERIKSSON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jain teaches:
…based on a drivable speed during traversal of the lane direction edge. (Jain, para [35], “The lane level routing plan can be modeled from (possibly time-parameterized) statistics of lane usage data, such as for example, speed profiles of traversing vehicles …of lane transitions into and out of a lane”)
Jain does not explicitly teach, but VALCHOK teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein assigning to each egress route edge a cost value includes assigning to each lane direction edge a lane cost…(VALCHOK, para [159], “assigns costs to respective edges of a given graph-structure, the electronic device 210 may be configured to determine global penalty scores for respective vertices of the given graph-structure.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from VALCHOK in order to include wherein assigning to each egress route edge a cost value includes assigning to each lane direction edge a lane cost based on a drivable speed during traversal of the lane direction edge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to find a “most time efficient route” (VALCHOK, Description).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15:
Jain in view of VALCHOK, ERIKSSON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jain does not explicitly teach, but VALCHOK teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein assigning to each egress route edge a cost value includes assigning to each lane change edge a lane change cost, the lane change cost being based on at least one of: a lane change success probability, a traffic density in a target lane of a corresponding lane change or a lane change direction cost.( VALCHOK, para[18], “The system may use the first scoring model for assigning costs to edges of the graph-structure, which are indicative of desirability of respective transitions”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from VALCHOK in order to include wherein assigning to each egress route edge a cost value includes assigning to each lane change edge a lane change cost, the lane change cost being based on at least one of: a lane change success probability, a traffic density in a target lane of a corresponding lane change or a lane change direction cost. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to find a “most time efficient route” (VALCHOK, Description).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17:
Jain in view of VALCHOK, ERIKSSON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jain does not explicitly teach, but VALCHOK teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: updating the egress route graph based on sensor data captured by the vehicle, the sensor data being indicative of at least one of: (VALCHOK, para [85], “Examples of the plurality of sensors include but are not limited to: cameras, LIDAR sensors, and RADAR sensors, etc”, claim 1, “using, by the electronic device, the traffic rules for determining lane-level information, the lane-level information being indicative of presence of at least one lane on each of the at least one road; using, by the electronic device, the lane-level information for generating a graph-structure”
a traffic condition on each lane of the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway, one or more road surface markings, or an end of a lane of the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway. (VALCHOK, para [14], “ the traffic rules module may have access to traffic rules for the one or more roads of the navigational route, including but not limited to: types of lane dividers, number of lanes, traffic direction of corresponding lanes, and the like. The traffic rules may be used by the lane splitter module for splitting the route into lanes according to the traffic rules”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from VALCHOK in order to include updating the egress route graph based on sensor data captured by the vehicle, the sensor data being indicative of at least one of: a traffic condition on each lane of the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway, one or more road surface markings, or an end of a lane of the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to find a “most time efficient route” (VALCHOK, Description).
Regarding Claim 8:
Jain in view of VALCHOK, ERIKSSON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Jain does not explicitly teach, but VALCHOK teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein updating the egress route graph based on the sensor data includes updating … the cost value of each egress route edge of the plurality of egress route edges.( VALCHOK, para[20], “the system may make use of the second scoring model in real-time”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from VALCHOK in order to include updating the egress route graph based on sensor data captured by the vehicle, the sensor data being indicative of at least one of: a traffic condition on each lane of the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway, one or more road surface markings, or an end of a lane of the at least partially controlled-access multilane highway. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to find a “most time efficient route” (VALCHOK, Description).
Jain does not explicitly teach, but ERIKSSON teaches:
updating the probability value…( ERIKSSON, para[60], “update the probabilities of existence of each lane” )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from ERIKSSON in order to include updating the probability value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “increasing the accuracy and redundancy in road estimation systems” (ERIKSSON, Description).
Regarding Claims 10 and 18:
Jain in view of VALCHOK, ERIKSSON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jain teaches:
generating, … an egress route node, (Jain, Fig.4B and para [57], “plan formulation module 203 may generate lane level routing plan”, para [34], “exiting a highway in the correct off ramp lane”)
Jain does not explicitly teach, but VALCHOK teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the egress route graph comprises: generating, for each link including a lane number, a number of lane direction edges corresponding to the lane number,( VALCHOK, para[14], “number of lanes, traffic direction of corresponding lanes,”, and para[116], “the lane-level information may be indicative of inter alia a number of lanes on roads”, )
wherein, for each link further including lane relationship information, each lane direction edge is connected to two neighboring lane direction edges based on the lane relationship information, and( VALCHOK, para[141], “ it can be said that a given edge in a given graph-structure may be also indicative of a “directionality” of the corresponding transition between the pair of vertices.”)
wherein, for each link not including lane relationship information, each lane direction edge is connected to two neighboring lane direction edges based on a lane relationship assumption, ( VALCHOK, para[141], “ it can be said that a given edge in a given graph-structure may be also indicative of a “directionality” of the corresponding transition between the pair of vertices.”)
generating, for each link not including a lane number, a number of lane direction edges based on lane numbers of neighboring links respectively including a lane number; ( VALCHOK, para[14], “number of lanes, traffic direction of corresponding lanes,”, and para[116], “the lane-level information may be indicative of inter alia a number of lanes on roads”)
generating, at each connection of two lane direction edges, …, each egress route node including a geographic position based on the links corresponding to the respective two lane direction edges; and( VALCHOK, para [120], “generating a given “graph-structure”, and para[39], “The plurality of vertices includes an origin vertex associated with the origin location and a destination vertex associated with the destination location. A given edge connects a respective pair of vertices in the graph-structure”)
generating lane change edges indicative of lane changes between at least a subset of the plurality of egress route nodes. ( VALCHOK, para [138], “It can be said that the edge 744 is indicative of a transition in which the vehicle 220 is at the potential location of the vertex 731 and performs a “rapid” lane-changing manoeuvre”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from VALCHOK in order to include generating, for each link including a lane number, a number of lane direction edges corresponding to the lane number, wherein, for each link further including lane relationship information, each lane direction edge is connected to two neighboring lane direction edges based on the lane relationship information, and wherein, for each link not including lane relationship information, each lane direction edge is connected to two neighboring lane direction edges based on a lane relationship assumption, generating, for each link not including a lane number, a number of lane direction edges based on lane numbers of neighboring links respectively including a lane number; generating, at each connection of two lane direction edges, an egress route node, each egress route node including a geographic position based on the links corresponding to the respective two lane direction edges; and generating lane change edges indicative of lane changes between at least a subset of the plurality of egress route nodes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to find a “most time efficient route” (VALCHOK, Description).
Claim(s) 2, 9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US20170084178A1) in view of VALCHOK (US20210331670A1) and ERIKSSON (US20240425056A1), further in view of Giurgiu (US 20190051153 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12:
Jain in view of VALCHOK, ERIKSSON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jain does not explicitly teach, but Giurgiu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein assigning to each egress route edge a confidence value includes assigning to each egress route edge corresponding to a link including at least one of a lane number and lane relationship information a confidence value indicative of a maximum existence probability.( Giurgiu, para [51], “the existence probability that is the maximum confidence to retain the road furniture to the geographic database”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from Giurgiu in order to include wherein assigning to each egress route edge a confidence value includes assigning to each egress route edge corresponding to a link including at least one of a lane number and lane relationship information a confidence value indicative of a maximum existence probability. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “update the map become more reliable and efficient” (Giurgiu, Description).
Regarding Claim 9:
Jain in view of VALCHOK, ERIKSSON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jain does not explicitly teach, but VALCHOK teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the egress route comprises determining a shortest path through the egress route graph having a lowest associated total cost value … ( VALCHOK, para [113], “the route 306 may be a most time-efficient route,”, and para[19], “a lowest cumulative cost of edges”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from VALCHOK in order to include wherein the determining of the egress route comprises determining a shortest path through the egress route graph having a lowest associated total cost value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to find a “most time efficient route” (VALCHOK, Description).
Jain does not explicitly teach, but Giurgiu teaches:
a maximum associated total confidence value ( Giurgiu, para [51], “the existence probability that is the maximum confidence to retain the road furniture to the geographic database”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from Giurgiu in order to include a maximum associated total confidence value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “update the map become more reliable and efficient” (Giurgiu, Description).
Claim(s) 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US20170084178A1) in view of VALCHOK (US20210331670A1) and ERIKSSON (US20240425056A1), further in view of Foster (US 20230140569 A1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16:
Jain in view of VALCHOK, ERIKSSON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jain does not explicitly teach, but Foster teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein assigning to each egress route edge a cost value includes assigning to each egress route edge an urgency cost, the urgency cost being indicative of a remaining distance to the target off-ramp.( Foster, para[610], “the remaining distance to the ramp”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Jain to include these above teachings from Foster in order to include wherein assigning to each egress route edge a cost value includes assigning to each egress route edge an urgency cost, the urgency cost being indicative of a remaining distance to the target off-ramp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improving roadway safety” (Foster, Description).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ainampudi (US20250108835A1) teaches techniques for generating and utilizing lane ending costs (e.g., a cost which may be associated with a portion of a lane associated with a penalty for arriving at that portion at the end of a fixed horizon of search) to, for example, determine control trajectories for a vehicle to follow.
Goto (US10300916B2) teaches autonomous driving assistance systems, methods, and programs obtain road information that specifies line types of lane markings and connection types of lanes and specify, when a vehicle travels with autonomous driving assistance, a planned route to be taken by the vehicle based on the road information. The systems, methods, and programs execute the autonomous driving assistance for the vehicle according to the specified planned route.
Li (US11520335B2) teaches an ADV may determine whether there is preexisting map data for an environment or geographical area/location where the ADV is located/travelling. If there is no preexisting data, the ADV may generate map data based on sensor data obtained from one or more sensors of the ADV. The ADV may determine a path for the ADV based on the generated map data. If there is preexisting map data, the ADV may determine a path for the ADV based on the preexisting map data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667