DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the documents filed 5/07/2026, with claims 1-7 pending.
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 .
Drawings
In light of the amendment to the drawings, the objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11 of the remarks, Applicant alleges that “…it is not the output of a scenario building step….Thus, D'Avanzo does not disclose "converting the test scenario to a first format of map data," "the first format of map data is uploaded to the map server," and "the server downloads the first format map data from the map server," as recited in claim 1.” The Examiner disagrees.
In response, paragraphs [0050]-[0052] of D’Avanzo describes the map simulation tester that outputs a map test object which includes all generated map test cases. Here map test cases are converted into the test scenario of various formats of map data.
On page 12 of the remarks, the Applicant alleges that “D'Avanzo does not disclose a method in which "the map engine converts the own-vehicle surrounding road network information and the planning path to a second format of map data and returns the second format of map data to the server," as recited in claim 1.” The Examiner disagrees.
In response, paragraph [0051] and [0055] of D’Avanzo teaches that “the map simulation tester 120 may consider the constraints and/or configuration parameters indicated by the map test configuration 410 to sample the traffic links (e.g., including roads and/or lanes) on the map and generate map simulation and test cases accordingly….The computer-implemented system may determine a first path of the plurality of paths by selecting one or more connected subgraphs from the plurality of subgraphs. In some aspects, the selecting of the one or more connected subgraphs may be further based on a second subgraph of the plurality of subgraphs, the second subgraph connecting to a start or an end of the one or more connected subgraphs.” Here the cited describes a conversion process.
On page 12 of the remarks Applicant alleges that “D’Avanzo fails to disclose different formats of map data” The Examiner disagrees.
In response, D’Avanzo teaches different formats of map data such as geographical information and sematic object as taught in paragraph [0002].
On page 13 of the remarks, Applicant alleges that “D'Avanzo does not disclose each and every element of Applicant's claim 1 arranged as in the claim, D'Avanzo cannot anticipate Applicant's claim 1.” The Examiner disagrees.
In response, MPEP § 2131 states that “to reject a claim as anticipated by a reference, the disclosure must teach every element required by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation. (emphasis added) See, e.g., MPEP § 2114, subsections II and IV.” To continue, MPEP § 2114 states that “the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. ‘[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.’ Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’ (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)….” With that stated, D'Avanzo clearly anticipates all the required elements for claim 1. Furthermore, as currently claimed the performance step are not requiring a certain sequential order.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In light of Applicant’s remarks on pages 6-9, the 35 USC § 101 is being withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Avanzo et al., US 2024/0060788 hereinafter “D’Avanzo”.
Claims 1 and 4-7. D’Avanzo teaches a map service providing method based on autonomous driving simulation testing, wherein the method is implemented using an emulator, a map server, a server, and a map engine, comprising:
performing a scenario building step, wherein the emulator is used for building a test scenario and converting the test scenario to a first format of map data ([0079] reads on this element as such—“The simulation platform 756 may enable testing and validation of the algorithms, machine learning models, neural networks, and other development efforts for the AV 702, the remote assistance platform 758, the ridesharing platform 760, the map management platform 762, and other platforms and systems. The simulation platform 756 may replicate a variety of driving environments and/or reproduce real-world scenarios from data captured by the AV 702, including rendering geospatial information and road infrastructure (e.g., streets, lanes, crosswalks, traffic lights, stop signs, etc.) obtained from the map management platform 762; modeling the behavior of other vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and other dynamic elements; simulating inclement weather conditions, different traffic scenarios; and so on. In some embodiments, the simulation platform 756 may include a map simulation tester 757 (e.g., similar the map simulation tester 120) that generates map test cases for a map based on ODD information and/or map test configuration, evaluates a vehicle compute process or planning process against the map test cases, and determines a metric for the map….” While [0061] teaches “At 606, a map test object including the plurality of map test cases is output. The map test object may be stored in a data structure or database including all the generated map test cases in any suitable format. The map test object can be stored and loaded into a simulator (e.g., the simulation platform 110 of FIG. 1 or the simulation platform 756 of FIG. 7) for map testing and/or AV planning stack testing at any suitable time.” Thus, taken together the cited section reads on this element. Also, [0045] teaches “Accordingly, the map simulation tester 120 may generate 5000 map test cases covering 200 traffic links in an area bounded by the geofence, where each map test cases may include one of a plurality of paths along one or more traffic links or traffic link segments in the area. In some instances, the map simulation tester 120 may further receive ODD information (e.g., the ODD information 140) indicating one or more avoidance areas (e.g., a blacklist including area(s), street(s), and/or lane(s) to avoid)”);
performing a map uploading step, wherein the first format of map data is uploaded to the map server ([0030] reads on this section as such—“In some examples, the simulation platform 110 can include a map storage 130 in which map data may be stored. In other examples, the map storage 130 may located at a remote server or cloud storage, for example, provided by a map service, and the simulation platform 110 may request for the map 102 from the map service.” Here the uploaded map data to the server is implied.);
performing a map downloading step, wherein the server downloads the first format of map data from the map server in the case that the server requires to access to the first format of map data (Taken together [0030] along with [0061] reads on this element as such “…the map storage 130 may located at a remote server or cloud storage, for example, provided by a map service, and the simulation platform 110 may request for the map 102 from the map service ….At 606, a map test object including the plurality of map test cases is output. The map test object may be stored in a data structure or database including all the generated map test cases in any suitable format. The map test object can be stored and loaded into a simulator (e.g., the simulation platform 110 of FIG. 1 or the simulation platform 756 of FIG. 7) for map testing and/or AV planning stack testing at any suitable time.” Thus, taken together the cited section reads on this element.);
performing an own-vehicle positioning step, wherein the emulator uploads own-vehicle positioning information to the server ([0015] reads on this element as such—“As part of planning, the AV may access map information and localize itself based on location information (e.g., from location sensors) and the map information. Subsequently, instructions can be sent to a controller to control the AV (e.g., for steering, accelerating, decelerating, braking, etc.) according to the planned path….”);
performing a map parsing step, wherein the map engine obtains the own-vehicle positioning information from the server and obtains own-vehicle surrounding road network information according to parsing of the own-vehicle positioning information and the first format of map data ([0069] reads on this element as such—“Mapping and localization stack 714 may determine the AV's position and orientation (pose) using different methods from multiple systems (e.g., GPS, IMUs, cameras, LIDAR, RADAR, ultrasonic sensors, the HD geospatial database 722, etc.). For example, in some embodiments, the AV 702 may compare sensor data captured in real-time by the sensor systems 704-708 to data in the HD geospatial database 722 to determine its precise (e.g., accurate to the order of a few centimeters or less) position and orientation. The AV 702 may focus its search based on sensor data from one or more first sensor systems (e.g., GPS) by matching sensor data from one or more second sensor systems (e.g., LIDAR). If the mapping and localization information from one system is unavailable, the AV 702 may use mapping and localization information from a redundant system and/or from remote data sources. Paragraphs [0032]-[0035] also reads on this element because it teaches a “plurality of path in the geographical area”);
performing a route generation step, wherein the map engine generates a planning path according to a simulation origin and a simulation endpoint, wherein the simulation origin and simulation endpoint are disposed in the emulator and provided to the map engine via the server by uploading to the server ([0015] along with [0056] reads on this element as such—“The predictions may be used to plan a path for the AV (e.g., from a starting position to a destination). As part of planning, the AV may access map information and localize itself based on location information (e.g., from location sensors) and the map information. Subsequently, instructions can be sent to a controller to control the AV (e.g., for steering, accelerating, decelerating, braking, etc.) according to the planned path….For instance, the vehicle planning process may be executed in a simulator configured with a traffic scenario as specified by each map test case, and the performance of the vehicle planning process will be evaluated (e.g., whether the vehicle planning process successfully navigate through a respective path).”);
performing a map data conversion step, wherein the map engine converts the own-vehicle surrounding road network information and the planning path to a second format of map data and returns the second format of map data to the server (fig. 4A illustrates a conversion process in which the map simulation tester 120 receives ODD information in real time regarding the geographical area, see [0030]-[0033] and fig. 1. Here ODD is certain map data type. While [0049] teaches “map data integration” and [0027] teaches the concept of data compatibility “between vehicle planning and map data”. Which implies that vehicle planning data is in a different format from the map test cases data); and
performing a map service providing step, wherein the server obtains the second format of map data and provides the second format of map data as a map service to the emulator ([0077]—teaches that the data management platform as illustrated in fig. 7 is “capable of receiving and transmitting data”….the data is “data of different types (e.g., sensor data, mechanical system data, ridesharing service data, map data, audio data, video data, etc.” Here the server is transmitting and receiving at least second format of map data). Furthermore, D’Avanzo in [0093] teaches “The particular sequence of such executable instructions or associated data structures represents examples of corresponding acts for implementing the functions described in such steps.” While [0049] teaches “map data integration” which is form of conversion. Additionally, [0090] teaches a “non-transitory and/or computer-readable memory device”.
Claim 2. D’Avanzo teaches the map service providing method based on autonomous driving simulation testing according to claim 1 and further teaches, wherein: the first format of map data is map data in Opendrive format, and the second format of map data is map data in PNC format ([0061] reads on this element as such—“At 606, a map test object including the plurality of map test cases is output. The map test object may be stored in a data structure or database including all the generated map test cases in any suitable format. The map test object can be stored and loaded into a simulator (e.g., the simulation platform 110 of FIG. 1 or the simulation platform 756 of FIG. 7) for map testing and/or AV planning stack testing at any suitable time.” Here the map testing data is different data type from the AV planning stack and is being considered as an Opendrive format. While the AV planning stack is being considered as an PNC format. Furthermore, [0077] teaches that data management platform uses variety data type.)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Avanzo in view of Stankoulov, US 2024/0005296.
Claim 3. D’Avanzo teaches the map service providing method based on autonomous driving simulation testing according to claim 1; however, D’Avanzo is silent on
authentication.
Yet, Stankoulov teaches wherein: in the map downloading step, the server requires to perform an identity authentication before downloading the map data from the map server and is configured to download the map data from the map server only in the case that the identity authentication is successful (fig. 13 best illustrates verification process. Here the user information may be validated or denied at step 1330. While fig. 5 best illustrates service point map service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combined the teaching of Stankoulov with the invention of D’Avanzo because such combination would to provide ubiquitous contactless vehicle identification to enable services and payments for users while inside a vehicle in a fast and secure manner, and without touching buttons or handing out cards or cash. (see [0027], Stankoulov).
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.
/A.D.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights