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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because independent claim 14 recited a computer program comprising a computer-readable tangible storage medium and a program instruction executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method. The limitation of non-transitory not recited. Although the program maybe program instruction that is stored on the tangible storage medium, there is no indication that the program itself cannot change, i.e. be transitory.
Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989)(during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signals per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. @ 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Insinuations for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. 8 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. 4 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. CJ: Animals -Patentability, 1 077 0) Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 5 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specifications silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
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 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 1-3 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OH US 20180267172.
1. A method of displaying a map, comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a request to display the map for a geographical region around a vehicle, Fig. 12#1400, Also 34.
wherein the request identifies layers the map including a first layer corresponding to map data obtained from a first type of image sensor and Fig.4 top left box first layer road view map data.
a second layer corresponds to map data obtained from a second, different, type of image sensor; Fig. 4 main image and para 8; where heading angle and lateral position information of the vehicle is extracted by comparing lane information detected by a vehicle sensor with lane information on an accurate map, heading angle, longitudinal and lateral position information of the vehicle are extracted through a LiDAR sensor. [Also 68, position of vehicle on map]
retrieving, in response to the request, map data corresponding to the geographical region from a map database that stores a multi-layer representation of the geographical region; Fig. 4; Also, para 9 GPS and lidar based map positioning.
selecting, in response to the request, the layers from the multi-layer representation; and Fig. 4; Also, para 9 GPS and lidar based map positioning. [selecting is based on the request i.e. same]
displaying the map on a display of the user device based on the request. Fig. 4
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first type of image sensor is a camera and the second type of image sensor is a lidar. 33-34 Camera and Lidar.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the map data includes map elements that are associated with element categories, each map element categorized as one of lanes, road marks, boundaries Fig.5 #S107, traffic lights, bounds, intersections, property types, and speed limits. Markush Groups
Markush Groups
Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7166 (February 9, 2011). Claims that set forth a list of alternatives from which a selection is to be made are typically referred to as Markush claims, after the appellant in Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm’r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196-97 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)
A Markush grouping is proper if the members of a group share a single structural similarity and a common use. See subsections II - IV, below, for guidelines regarding the determination of whether a Markush grouping is improper, a Markush grouping may be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
A claim which recites a list of alternatives to define a limitation such as “lanes, road marks, boundaries, traffic lights, bounds, intersections, property types, and speed limits.” recited in the claim. As such only one of the selections of the limitation needs to be addressed with a rejection to fully reject the claim.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
comparing differences of the map data among one or more layers of the multi-layer representation of the geographical region; and 9; a system for recognizing a position of a vehicle includes a lane-based position recognition device configured to extract correction information about a heading angle and a lateral position of the vehicle by comparing measured lane information with lane information on an accurate map. Also 12-18
visually presenting the differences on the map displayed on the display of the user device. Fig. 4
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the map database includes at least two map data having different file formats from each other.Fig.4 two different map data with two different formats.
Claim 9 is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 1 in addition to:
9. A system of displaying a map for a user, comprising:
a communication interface configured to communicate with one or more vehicles;
a database 1600 storing a multi-layer representation of a geographical region Fig. 4 and sensor data captured by sensors of the one or more vehicles 8; vehicle are extracted through a LiDAR sensor; and
a processor 1100 coupled to the database 1600 and communicable with the one or more vehicles through the communication interface 8; using position information extracted from each sensor by extracting heading angle and longitudinal position information of the vehicle based on a GPS, the processor configured to:
receive, from a vehicle, a request to display the map for the geographical region around the vehicle, wherein the request identifies layers of the map including a first layer corresponding to map data obtained from a first type of image sensor and a second layer corresponds to map data obtained from a second, different, type of image sensor; retrieve, in response to the request, map data corresponding to the geographical region from the database; select the layers from the multi-layer representation; display the map on a display installed in the vehicle 8; detected by a vehicle sensor based on the request 1400.
10. is rejected using the same rejections a made to claim 2.
11. is rejected using the same rejections a made to claim 2. Markush Groups
12. is rejected using the same rejections a made to claim 3.
13. is rejected using the same rejections a made to claim 7.
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 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.
Claims 4, 6, 14-20 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH as applied to claim the above, and further in view of Zhang US 20200074193.
4. OH teaches all of the limitaitons of claim 3 but does not teach, further comprising:
presenting, to the user device, a list of map elements included in the map,
upon a selection by the user of a particular map element having a particular element category, updating the map to display map elements corresponding to the particular element category.
However, Zhang teaches presenting, to the user device, a list of map elements included in the map, Zhang Fig. 8A list of speeds on map
upon a selection by the user of a particular map element having a particular element category, updating the map to display map elements corresponding to the particular element category. Fig. 8A Speed category; Also, para 5; used to update a road sign database, such as a digital map database in real time.
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order for a system to learn about rad signs to increase accuracy in real-time such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious
6. Ho teaches all of the limitations of claim 3; but does not explicitly teach:
presenting, to the user device, a list of map elements included in the map, upon a selection by the user of a particular map element having a particular element category, updating the map to remove map elements corresponding to element categories different from the particular element category.
However, Zhang teaches presenting, to the user device, a list of map elements included in the map, upon a selection by the user of a particular map element having a particular element category, updating the map to remove map elements corresponding to element categories different from the particular element category. Zhang para 69; the plurality of second clusters may be removed to filter the road sign recognition observations.
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order for a system to learn about rad signs to increase accuracy in real-time such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious
14.is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 4.
15. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the selection of the at least one map feature identifies a target layer to be displayed from the layers. Ho, Fig.4 Camera view is selected as target layer.
16. is rejected using the same rejections made to claim 3.
17. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein, upon the selection of the at least one map feature, the map data is displayed on the map with signal information that applies to the lanes such that the signal information corresponding to different lanes is distinguished from each other. HO 8; comparing lane information detected by a vehicle sensor with lane information on an accurate map, heading angle, a system for recognizing a position of a vehicle includes a lane-based position. [which lane the vehicle is in distinguished from each other]
18. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the map data is configured in the layers based on a source of the map data such that the each of the layers are associated with different types of image sensors. HO Fig.4 different types of image sensors, i.e. camera and lidar.
19. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein, upon the selection of the at least one map feature, the map is rendered to display map data from a particular type of image sensor without displaying map data from other types of image sensors than the particular type. Zhing Fig. 8 GPS satellite image only no Lidar.
20. is rejected using the same rejections made to claim 7.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH and Zhange as applied to claim above, and further in view of Gautam 20210402991.
5. Ho teaches all of the limitations of claim 4; but does not explicitly teach, wherein the particular map element corresponds to a particular lane and the map is updated to map data including road marks, traffic lights, and speed limits that are applied to the particular lane.
However, Gautam teaches, wherein the particular map element corresponds to a particular lane and the map is updated to map data including road marks, traffic lights, and speed limits that are applied to the particular lane. Gautam Para 64; the map data 122 can provide information regarding: the identity and/or location of different roadways, road segments, buildings, or other items or objects (e.g., lampposts, crosswalks and/or curbs); the location and directions of traffic lanes (e.g., the location and direction of a parking lane, a turning lane, a bicycle lane, or other lanes within a particular roadway or other travel way and/or one or more boundary.
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success object trajectory association and tracking such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 11-7pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664