DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 29, 2024. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in The Republic of China on January 17, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
35 U.S.C. § 101 –Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a trajectory planning method (i.e., a process). Claim 8 is directed to a device / system claim with instructions executed by a processor (i.e. an article of manufacture). Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium with instructions executed by a processor (i.e. an article of manufacture). Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
35 U.S.C. § 101 – Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. See MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
A claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. Claim 1 recites:
A trajectory planning method, comprising:
planning a target standard definition (SD) trajectory in an SD map based on a start point and an end point of a trajectory [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
matching respective high definition (HD) trajectory segments in an HD map based on individual SD trajectory segments in the target SD trajectory [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
connecting nodes corresponding to individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments based on relations between the individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments to obtain a topology map [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
determining a target route in the topology map based on the start point and the end point of the trajectory [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)]; and
determining a corresponding target HD trajectory in the HD map based on the target route. [Recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
For example, “planning a target standard definition… trajectory…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person(s) designing / preparing a standard definition path or route; wherein “matching respective high definition (HD) trajectory segments…. based on individual SD trajectory segments in the target SD trajectory…” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to correlate high definition segments including, but not limited to contiguous lanes and individual trajectory points on the individual lanes; to standard definition trajectory segments including, but not limited to, a plurality of trajectory points in a road.
“Connecting nodes corresponding to individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments based on relations between the individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments to obtain a topology map” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to linking and/or combining the aforementioned high definition segments (including, but not limited to contiguous lanes and individual trajectory points on the individual lanes) to standard definition trajectory segments (including, but not limited to, a plurality of trajectory points in a road) in order to design a topology map. Subsequently, “determining a target route in the topology map…” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) calculating a desired route to a destination according to the derived topology map; further “determining a corresponding target HD trajectory…” then concerns those person(s) utilizing the high definition segments to plot a high definition path to the destination. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 101 – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be
analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution (application) activity and post-solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do NOT integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A trajectory planning method, comprising:
planning a target standard definition (SD) trajectory in an SD map based on a start point and an end point of a trajectory [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
matching respective high definition (HD) trajectory segments in an HD map based on individual SD trajectory segments in the target SD trajectory [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
connecting nodes corresponding to individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments based on relations between the individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments to obtain a topology map [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
determining a target route in the topology map based on the start point and the end point of the trajectory [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)]; and
determining a corresponding target HD trajectory in the HD map based on the target route. [Recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)].
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do NOT integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra solution (application) activity and post-solution activity that merely comprise an insignificant application of the results of acquiring data from generic / conventional sensors and computer components. Lastly, the “vehicle controller” (i.e. the one or more processors) merely describes applying the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply, or implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do NOT integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 101 – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle processor (computer) controller to perform the “planning a target standard definition… trajectory…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person(s) designing / preparing a standard definition path or route; wherein “matching respective high definition (HD) trajectory segments…. based on individual SD trajectory segments in the target SD trajectory…” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to correlate high definition segments including, but not limited to contiguous lanes and individual trajectory points on the individual lanes; to standard definition trajectory segments including, but not limited to, a plurality of trajectory points in a road.
“Connecting nodes corresponding to individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments based on relations between the individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments to obtain a topology map” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to linking and/or combining the aforementioned high definition segments (including, but not limited to contiguous lanes and individual trajectory points on the individual lanes) to standard definition trajectory segments (including, but not limited to, a plurality of trajectory points in a road) in order to design a topology map. Subsequently, “determining a target route in the topology map…” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) calculating a desired route to a destination according to the derived topology map; further “determining a corresponding target HD trajectory…” then concerns those person(s) utilizing the high definition segments to plot a high definition path to the destination… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component and performing insignificant application of the results of the mental process. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Using additional sensors and using generic computers to perform determining and calculating steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of automating a mental process, because the background recites conventional sensors and the vehicle controller is a conventional computer within a vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 - 14, and 16 - 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, it can clearly be seen that dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 - 14, and 16 - 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2024/0019264 A1 to MICHAL DOMINIK ROSIKIEWICZ et al. (herein after "Michal").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 1,
Michal’s system for using digital map data discloses a trajectory planning method (see at least Fig. 7 ~ a navigation system comprising a processor for performing node connections of link elements between SD maps and HD maps and ¶0027 ~ "corresponding route to a route generated with respect to the first digital map may be determined with respect to the second digital map to support motion planning for a vehicle" and Abstract), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
752
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
planning a target standard definition (SD) trajectory in an SD map based on a start point and an end point of a trajectory (see at least ¶0255 ~ " the linkage information of all parts of an entity (SD arc or HD trajectory) should preferably sum up to the whole range of that entity. In other words, for any portion of an SD arc, or HD trajectory there must be an entry in the linkage table");
matching respective high definition (HD) trajectory segments in an HD map based on individual SD trajectory segments in the target SD trajectory (see at least ¶0026 ~ finds correspondence between SD and HD maps for locating respective data within the maps, such as links in the road network, ¶0280 ~ "a rule... selecting a sequence of connected stretches, defining a start location of a first stretch of the sequence and a destination location on the last stretch of the sequence... and determining the map correspondence based on a route between the start location and the destination location along the sequence of stretches");
connecting nodes corresponding to individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments based on relations between the individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments to obtain a topology map (see at least Fig. 7 and ¶0279 ~ "route from the start location to destination location then is used to determine correspondence between the two maps around the topology node"; thus teaches connection of nodes corresponding to HD trajectory segments relative to a topology map);
determining a target route in the topology map based on the start point and the end point of the trajectory (see at least Fig. 7 and ¶0279 ~ "route from the start location to destination location then is used to determine correspondence between the two maps around the topology node"); and
determining a corresponding target HD trajectory in the HD map based on the target route. (See at least Fig. 7, ¶0279, and ¶0339 ~ "a route determined by the navigation system 240 with respect to SD map data, to determine a corresponding route or route portions with respect to HD map data for input to the horizon system 220").
As to Claim 6,
Michal discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the matching the respective HD trajectory segments in the high definition HD map based on the individual SD trajectory segments in the target SD trajectory comprises:
determining HD trajectory segments whose distances from the SD trajectory segments are within a preset distance range in the HD map to obtain at least one candidate HD trajectory segment (see at least Fig. 7,¶0274 ~ "method may involve an algorithm selecting a given stretch of one of the HDx and SDx maps, and then iteratively comparing... the stretches of the other one of the HDx and SDx maps," ¶0279 ~ "stretches around a topology node. An incoming stretch and outgoing stretch may be used to select… corresponding to a reference marker point…. prior to the topology node… corresponding to a reference marker"; teaches determining HD trajectory segments relative to SD trajectory segments within ranges between a prior determined commencement and termination reference points (~ preset distance range), ¶0282 ~ "A set of rules may be used to determine the correspondence between the SD and HD maps in step 410" and ¶0338; thereby teaching acquiring a candidate HD trajectory); and
determining HD trajectory segments corresponding to the SD trajectory segments based on the at least one candidate HD trajectory segment. (See at least Fig. 7, ¶0279 - ¶0280, ¶0337 ~ "map client 230... obtain... SD and HD map data from the map delivery system 280 and provide it to the... first and second map based applications, wherein ¶0338 ~ "The horizon system 220 provides the Automated Driving System 210 with the HD map data that it operates on… covering predicted future locations of the vehicle… may also cover alternate paths enabling the automated driving system to respond to real-time events (e.g. accidents, evasive manoeuvres, driver intervention).
As to Claim 8,
Michal discloses an electronic device (see at least Fig. 15 ~ a navigation system and ¶0098 ~ "map linkage data product may be provided by one or more databases… by a server… provided to a client device e.g. navigation device requiring correspondence data e.g. on a tiled basis"), comprising:
at least one processor (see at least Fig. 15 ~ a navigation system comprising a processor for performing node connections of link elements between SD maps and HD maps, ¶0098 and ¶0164 ~ a processor); and
a memory connected in communication with the at least one processor (see at least Fig. 15 and ¶0167 ~ "a computer program product for use with a computer system. Such an implementation may comprise a series of computer readable instructions either fixed on a tangible, non-transitory intermediate, such as a computer readable intermediate");
wherein the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor, and the instruction, when executed by the at least one processor (see at least Figs. 7 and 15, and ¶0167), enables the at least one processor to perform:
planning a target standard definition (SD) trajectory in an SD map based on a start point and an end point of a trajectory (see at least ¶0255 ~ " the linkage information of all parts of an entity (SD arc or HD trajectory) should preferably sum up to the whole range of that entity. In other words, for any portion of an SD arc, or HD trajectory there must be an entry in the linkage table");
matching respective high definition (HD) trajectory segments in an HD map based on individual SD trajectory segments in the target SD trajectory (see at least ¶0026 ~ finds correspondence between SD and HD maps for locating respective data within the maps, such as links in the road network, ¶0280 ~ "a rule... selecting a sequence of connected stretches, defining a start location of a first stretch of the sequence and a destination location on the last stretch of the sequence... and determining the map correspondence based on a route between the start location and the destination location along the sequence of stretches");
connecting nodes corresponding to individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments based on relations between the individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments to obtain a topology map (see at least Fig. 7 and ¶0279 ~ "route from the start location to destination location then is used to determine correspondence between the two maps around the topology node"; thus teaches connection of nodes corresponding to HD trajectory segments relative to a topology map);
determining a target route in the topology map based on the start point and the end point of the trajectory (see at least Fig. 7 and ¶0279 ~ "route from the start location to destination location then is used to determine correspondence between the two maps around the topology node"); and
determining a corresponding target HD trajectory in the HD map based on the target route. (See at least Fig. 7, ¶0279, and ¶0339 ~ "a route determined by the navigation system 240 with respect to SD map data, to determine a corresponding route or route portions with respect to HD map data for input to the horizon system 220").
As to Claim 13,
Michal discloses the electronic device of claim 8,
wherein the instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, enables the at least one processor to perform matching the respective HD trajectory segments in the high definition HD map by:
determining HD trajectory segments whose distances from the SD trajectory segments are within a preset distance range in the HD map to obtain at least one candidate HD trajectory segment (see at least Fig. 7, ¶0274 ~ "method may involve an algorithm selecting a given stretch of one of the HDx and SDx maps, and then iteratively comparing... the stretches of the other one of the HDx and SDx maps," ¶0279 ~ "stretches around a topology node. An incoming stretch and outgoing stretch may be used to select… corresponding to a reference marker point…. prior to the topology node… corresponding to a reference marker"; teaches determining HD trajectory segments relative to SD trajectory segments within ranges between a prior determined commencement and termination reference points (~ preset distance range), ¶0282 ~ "A set of rules may be used to determine the correspondence between the SD and HD maps in step 410" and ¶0338; thereby teaching acquiring a candidate HD trajectory); and
determining HD trajectory segments corresponding to the SD trajectory segments based on the at least one candidate HD trajectory segment. (See at least Fig. 7, ¶0279 - ¶0280, ¶0337 ~ "map client 230... obtain... SD and HD map data from the map delivery system 280 and provide it to the... first and second map based applications, wherein ¶0338 ~ "The horizon system 220 provides the Automated Driving System 210 with the HD map data that it operates on… covering predicted future locations of the vehicle… may also cover alternate paths enabling the automated driving system to respond to real-time events (e.g. accidents, evasive manoeuvres, driver intervention)).
As to Claim 15,
Michal discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer instruction thereon (see at least Fig. 15 and ¶0167 ~ "a computer program product for use with a computer system. Such an implementation may comprise a series of computer readable instructions either fixed on a tangible, non-transitory intermediate, such as a computer readable intermediate"), wherein the computer instruction is used to cause a computer to perform:
planning a target standard definition (SD) trajectory in an SD map based on a start point and an end point of a trajectory (see at least ¶0255 ~ " the linkage information of all parts of an entity (SD arc or HD trajectory) should preferably sum up to the whole range of that entity. In other words, for any portion of an SD arc, or HD trajectory there must be an entry in the linkage table");
matching respective high definition (HD) trajectory segments in an HD map based on individual SD trajectory segments in the target SD trajectory (see at least ¶0026 ~ finds correspondence between SD and HD maps for locating respective data within the maps, such as links in the road network, ¶0280 ~ "a rule... selecting a sequence of connected stretches, defining a start location of a first stretch of the sequence and a destination location on the last stretch of the sequence... and determining the map correspondence based on a route between the start location and the destination location along the sequence of stretches");
connecting nodes corresponding to individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments based on relations between the individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments to obtain a topology map (see at least Fig. 7 and ¶0279 ~ "route from the start location to destination location then is used to determine correspondence between the two maps around the topology node"; thus teaches connection of nodes corresponding to HD trajectory segments relative to a topology map);
determining a target route in the topology map based on the start point and the end point of the trajectory (see at least Fig. 7 and ¶0279 ~ "route from the start location to destination location then is used to determine correspondence between the two maps around the topology node"); and
determining a corresponding target HD trajectory in the HD map based on the target route. (See at least Fig. 7, ¶0279, and ¶0339 ~ "a route determined by the navigation system 240 with respect to SD map data, to determine a corresponding route or route portions with respect to HD map data for input to the horizon system 220").
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 5, 7, 9 – 12, 14, and 16 – 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In particular, the available prior art appears to be silent in disclosing…
the method of claim 1, wherein the connecting the nodes corresponding to the individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments comprises:
determining an HD lane set based on the individual HD lanes in the individual HD trajectory segments; and
unidirectionally connecting individual nodes corresponding to the individual HD lanes in the HD lane set based on an anterior-posterior connection relation between the individual HD lanes in the HD lane set to obtain the topology map;
determining a reference direction based on a driving direction of the SD trajectory segments; and
determining a candidate HD trajectory segment in which an angle between the driving direction and the reference direction is less than a preset angle threshold in the at least one candidate HD trajectory segment to obtain HD trajectory segments corresponding to the SD trajectory segments. Emphasis added.
The prior art does not appear to explicitly teach or disclose the above recited claim limitations.
To that end and although further search and consideration would always need to be performed based upon any submitted amendments by the Applicant, it is the Examiner’s position that incorporating these above recited claim limitations into independent claims 1, 8, and 15 may/might possibly advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The Examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (571) 270 – 7016. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights