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 the Claims
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, 18-19 have been amended. Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims at a high level recite modifying map data.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-19 recite a method, product and a system and therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine and a product.
The USPTO Guidance recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2). MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d).
Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look in Step 2B to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field; or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
First, determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites –
▪ a first stream from a first map layer provision system, the first stream comprising data describing changes to first map object definitions of a first map layer, the first map layer comprising a parent layer (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically analyze stream of data modifications);
▪ a second stream from a second map layer provision system, the second stream comprising data describing changes to second map object definitions of a second map layer, wherein the second map layer is a child layer of the first map layer, and the second map object definitions include references to the first map object definitions (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically analyze stream of data modifications and determine various map definitions, links between data and parent/child reference of map objects);
▪ determining whether the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definitions are associated with an integrity issue (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can various integrity issues of map objects), and
▪ transmitting an output stream based on the data of the first stream and the data of the second stream if it is determined that the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definitions are not associated with an integrity issue (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can generate an output based on logic describing changes and various issues ); and
▪ if it is determined that the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definitions are associated with an integrity issue, transmitting, to at least one of the first map layer provision system and the second map layer provision system, feedback indicating an integrity issue associated with the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definition (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can generate a feedback and output / transmit such feedback based on various logical determinations.)
These limitations, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a mental process, i.e. a judicial exception. For these reasons, the independent claim 1, as well as independents claims 18 and 19, which include limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1, recite a judicial exception.
A method, like the claimed method, “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” See Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea. See In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 795—96 (CCPA 1982), which held that “a mental process that a neurologist should follow” when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions was not patentable.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additional elements:
▪ obtaining, by a processing system, first and second streams and performing, by the processing system, a stream processing of the first stream and the second stream (Amount to “Apply it”. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using a generic system to process a data stream);
▪ transmitting an output stream; transmitting, to at least one of the first map layer provision system and the second map layer provision system, feedback (A generic computer functions of data transmission that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Extracting caption data and natural text processing are merely extra-solution activities and does not meaningfully limit the independent claims. Generic computer implementation does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component- see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
The term “additional elements” for claim features, limitations, or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. Claim 18 additionally recite “computer-readable storage medium” and claim 18 recites “a memory; and at least one processing system.” However, claims do not recite any improvements to these additional elements, nor does the claims recite any particularly programmed or configured computer system, device, or machine learning. Rather, the additional elements in claims 1, 18 and 19 serve merely to automate the abstract idea. See Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., 50 F. 4" 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[A] patent that ‘automate[s] “pen and paper methodologies” to conserve human resources and minimize errors’ is a ‘quintessential “do it on a computer” patent’ directed to an abstract idea.”) (quoting Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Therefore, none of these recited additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating and processing known data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, the 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. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
Next determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, determine whether the claims recite an “inventive concept” that “must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see MPEP § 2106.05(d). There must be more than “computer functions [that] are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014) (second alteration in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)); see MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2B: The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il). Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer and associated computer network to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and comparing data, are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of displaying, processing and storing data using some unspecified, generic computer).
Note, that in similar case, such as Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), the Courts have identified that the additional elements of displaying and analyzing data, as shown in the independent claims 1, 18, 19 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
No “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract method of organizing human activity into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05. Rather, the additional elements identified above are merely well-understood, conventional computer components, as confirmed by the Specification. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(1). For example, the Specification refers to the additional elements in generic terms.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate and process known data.
Additionally, the computer components are used for performing insignificant extra-solution activity and well understood, routine, and conventional functions. For example, the claimed processor and machine learning merely communicates and processes known data. Activities such as these are insignificant extra-solution activity and, therefore, well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); see also, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price); CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754 (Consulting and updating an activity log); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Recording a customer’s order); Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017) (Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price). Furthermore, limitations such as integrating account details are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Independent system claim 1, 18 and 19 contain the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of a processor, hardware and the media, which is a generic computer component, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 18 and 19 are patent ineligible because they are directed to an abstract idea that does not recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-17 do not recite additional limitations that demonstrate integration of the abstract idea into a practical application or an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claims 2-6:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ claim 2 - wherein the first stream comprises a first sequence of messages, wherein the second stream comprises a second sequence of messages, wherein a message timing of the first sequence of messages is independent of a message timing of the second sequence of messages (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can receive updates in sequence of timing information and determine associations in the stream.)
▪ claim 3 - triggering a corrective action responsive to determining that the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definitions are associated with an integrity issue (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user perform corrective action);
▪ Claim 4 - storing, responsive to determining that the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definitions are associated with an integrity issue (Amount to mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer functionality. A mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).);
▪ Claim 5 – monitoring, responsive to determination that the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definitions are associated with an integrity issue, the first stream and the second stream prior to triggering the corrective actionis an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process using an algorithm of language processing (software). A human is able to perform such evaluation)
▪ Claim 6 - correcting an incorrect reference to at least one of the first map object definitions in at least one of the second map object definitions based at least on the integrity issue; propagating feedback to map layer provision systems of the first map layer and the second map layer based at least on the integrity issue; changing a type of at least one of the changes from a first type ofAbstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user perform corrective actions).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Step 2B: the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2-6 are ineligible.
With respect to claims 7-11:
▪ Claim 7 - transmitting the output stream comprises aggregating at least two changes to Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can manually determine inconsistency for a given layer map object definitions).
▪ Claim 8 - determining whether the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definitions are associated with an integrity issue comprises a logical integrity verification of at least one second map object definition changed as described by the second stream or at least one first map object definition changed asAbstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can manually determine referential inconsistency between different layers).
▪ Claim 9 - determining whether the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definitions are associated with an integrity issueAbstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can evaluate layers of data for integrity verification);
▪ Claim 10 - wherein a group of map layers including the child layer and parent layer define an acyclic graph and comprise a base map layer defining nodes and links of a navigable network, wherein parent layer corresponds to: the base map layer; or a map layer that references nodes and links defined by the base map layer but is different from the base map layer (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can evaluate information by means of acyclic graph based on different map layers).
▪ Claim 11 – wherein the acyclic graph defines a hierarchical map layer structure that comprises the base map layer at a root , wherein the acyclic graph comprises one or several map layers referencing the base map layer and comprising at least one of: a turn restrictions layer; a speed limits layer; a speed profile layer; a one way layer; a blocked passages layer; a buildings layer; an address points layer; a parking information layer; a point of interest layer (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can evaluate hierarchical map layer structure);
Additional elements: the additional element listed above in step 2A Prong 2 is merely instructions to be implemented on a generic computer component. Therefore, the additional element does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Step 2A Prong 1: The claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Dependent claims 7-11 are thus, also patent ineligible for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claims 12-17:
▪ Claim 12 – wherein the first map layer provision and the second map layer provision system are operative to implement changes to map object definitions in the first map layer and the second map layer independently of each other (A generic computer functions of receiving and processing that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Extracting caption data and natural text processing are merely extra-solution activities and does not meaningfully limit the independent claims. Generic computer implementation does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea);
▪ Claim 13 - wherein transmitting the output stream comprises generating first output for a first map product and second output for a second map product (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can perform separate verifications).
▪ Claim 14 – performing an action based at least on the output, wherein the action comprises at least one of: route search; route guidance; an automated driving function; and traffic flow control (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can perform various manual actions, such as route determination);
▪ Claim 15 – transmitting an output stream includes: transmitting the output stream comprising one or more output messages, the output messages including one or more of: map data for use by map data consumers; and data for providing map data to map data consumers (A generic computer functions of receiving and outputting data that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Extracting caption data and natural text processing are merely extra-solution activities and does not meaningfully limit the independent claims. Generic computer implementation does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea)
▪ Claim 16 – wherein the output messages include aggregate information from at least two different map layers (is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process using an algorithm of language processing (software). A human is able to perform such aggregation);
▪ Claim 17 - wherein the output stream: comprises a plurality of output messages; and has varying delay between at least some output messages from among the plurality of output messages (is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process using an algorithm of language processing (software). A human is able to perform such evaluation based on spaced messages).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Step 2B: the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 12-17 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGavran et al. (US 20200166363) in view of Wheeler (US 20190368882) and in further view of Chreptyk et al. (US 20220349725).
Regarding claim 1, McGavran teaches a method of modifying map data, the method comprising: obtaining, by a processing system:
a first stream from a first map layer provision system ([0048], [0230] “continuous stream of data”), the first stream comprising data describing changes to first map object definitions of a first map layer, the first map layer comprising a parent layer ([0054] “Some IDs can be relative to a parent object. … a lane ID can be a simple index in relation to a parent road segment”, [0065], [0086], [0123] “receive… map data updates … the map data sent and/or received … passed to the real-time operating system of the vehicle”; “sensor observations can include a delta (e.g., a difference or change in state or value) from previously provided data including anomalies and new observations”, [0259]);
a second stream from a second map layer provision system, the second stream comprising data describing changes to second map object definitions of a second map layer ([0181], [0190], [0204], [0318]), wherein the second map layer is a child layer of the first map layer ([0056] “cross-reference information about that object between different packets and different layers by its ID”, [0146], [0149] “layers can also cross-reference each other”; “If an object is described in multiple layers within a consistent epoch, for instance given a road segment's attribute and geometry layers, they can use the shared object ID to refer to that object” aka child object sharing a parent, [0156], [0168]), and the second map object definitions include references to the first map object definitions ([0040], [0124], [0206], [0208], [0257])(see NOTE); and
performing, by the processing system, a stream processing of the first stream and the second stream, the stream processing comprising:
determining whether the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definitions ([0149] “layers can also cross-reference each other … If an object is described in multiple layers within a consistent epoch, for instance given a road segment's attribute and geometry layers, they can use the shared object ID to refer to that object”, [0168], [0183] “subsequent layers”) are associated with an integrity issue ([0094] “two layers have conflicting information with respect to the location of a landmark”, [0245] “determination that no two “fused” providers overlap in any layers can be made. If the two fused providers overlap, this can be considered an error condition”, [0310]);
transmitting an output stream based on the data of the first stream and the data of the second stream if it is determined that the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions ([0245 “clients may subscribe to the fused version of a layer”, [0251]-[0252], [0313]) and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definitions are not associated with an integrity issue ([0083] “confidence of observation including a confidence that the speed limit sign was recognized correctly”); and
if it is determined ([0072], [0211] “comparing locally observed signs with the prior map, locations where the map may be inaccurate, incorrect, and/or out of date, can be detected and prioritized for harvesting”, [0310] “priority of subscription can be determinative of a single layer of the plurality of layers to subscribe when there is a conflict between the vehicle map service data in two or more of the plurality of layers”) that the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definitions ([0225] “The landmarks layer can be updated in the event that a landmark is removed or relocated. Observations can be added to the model, as well as feedback from vehicles”, [0227]-[0229]) are associated with an integrity issue ([0245] see “consistency issues”, [0251] “update a fairly static map with corrections to road attributes and geometry”, “compute the difference and store the evidence of a new road segment for later upload to the remote map”, [0211] “map may be inaccurate, incorrect, and/or out of date”, [0275] “determining which of the road signs in the data are conflicting (e.g., not in accordance with the previously determined state of the road signs including the location of the road sign and/or what is indicated by the road signs) or new (e.g., signs that were not previously detected)”), transmitting, to at least one of the first map layer provision system and the second map layer provision system, feedback indicating
McGavran does not explicitly teach, however Wheeler discloses if it is determined that the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definitions are associated with an integrity issue, transmitting, to at least one of the first map layer provision system and the second map layer provision system, feedback indicating an integrity issue associated with the data of the first stream describing changes to first map object definitions and the data of the second stream describing changes to second map object definition ([0006], [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of McGavran to include feedback indicating an integrity issue as disclosed by Wheeler. Doing so would provide a response with high accuracy and freshness of data by ensuring that the map is updated to reflect changes on the road (Wheeler [0031])
NOTE – If McGavran does not explicitly teach, however Chreptyk further discloses a dependency between layers and the limitation of –
second stream from a second map layer provision system, the second stream comprising data describing changes to second map object definitions of a second map layer, wherein the second map layer is a child layer of the first map layer, and the second map object definitions include references to the first map object definitions ([0074] “each layer may depend on the ‘core’ 202 layer and require that the ‘core’ 202 layer or a portion thereof be provided to the system in order to use any additional layers. In some embodiments, layer dependencies may be configured into a dependency graph where layers may reference sub-layers that may be required in order to use a particular layer”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of McGavran to include dependencies between layers as disclosed by Chreptyk. Doing so would provide a more reliable information and it has potential to improve traffic flow smoothness and reduce congestion on the road (Chreptyk [0279]).
Claims 18 and 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The dependent claims are rejected in further view of the KIM et al. (US 20230384122), Akbarzadeh et al. (US 20210063199), Toroman et al. (US 20210035266), Kroepfl et al. (US 20210063200), Collins et al. (US 2023/0332923), FU (US 20240328822), PENG et al. (US 20240037823), Ashman et al. (US 2023/0258472), Chamaa et al. (US 20240400085) and SIEBEL et al. (US 20170006135) Chamaa et al. (US 20240400085), SIEBEL et al. (US 20170006135) and Vincenzo Del Fatto, Vincenzo Deufemia, Luca Paolino “Map Integrity Constraint Verification by using Visual Language Parsing” as indicated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/17/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The present claims as whole are directed to the abstract idea implemented on a generic computers. The claims in summary recite receiving different data streams, analyzing different layers of data in the stream, determining hierarchy and verifying integrity between connected layers (i.e. updates in layers are propagated and synchronized). I.e. the claims are directed to comparing related records and depending on whether they are consistent, either pass the records on or send a notice of inconsistency. This is a purely mental / logical process. A person can - read the parent layer change list and child layer change list. Check whether child object still points to existing parent object, and if the y do – provide an output to a consumer, and if not – tell the author that there is a problem.
The parent/child and “map object definition” labels do not change the character of the idea. They are a particular data being compared – not a different kind of process. The claimed “stream processing” does not take the claims outside Prong One. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit treat collecting, comparing and outputting data as abstract, even when labeled “real0time”, “streaming”, “online” etc.
With respect to Prong Two – the additional elements are generic computing and messaging components. They do not: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machines (except for a generic computer); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied on any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2 106.05(a) (c), (e) (b). In other words, the aforementioned additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54- 55 ("Prong 2").
Second, the use of computer hardware and/or software components to optimize the processing of data may improve the abstract idea, but, in this context, is not a technological improvement. Appeal Br.5; see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363. 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
At Step 2B – no inventive concept. The user is interacting with the computer in a conventional manner. Relatedly, the computer, that is to say the hardware upon which the program is operating, is operating in an entirely conventional manner. The proposed technical effect is not causing the computer in of itself to operate different as the method is operating at the level of application and thus is not interacting with the hardware at a level beyond that which any computer program would do so. Similarly, the computer upon which the program is operating is not operating more efficiently or effectively. The computer itself is operating entirely conventionally and the contribution is not having an effect on the efficiency of the computer itself. Therefore, the Office finds no improvements to another technology or field, no improvements to the function of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, there are no limitations in any of the claims that transform the exception (i.e., the abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
To overcome the rejection, the applicant is advised to further recite – how a computer or vehicle is improved (i.e. specific on vehicle fails-operational fallback, specific localization filter or a specific technical mechanism that improves stream processing, etc.)
Applicant's remaining arguments, in regard to the presently amended claims, are addressed in the updated rejections to the claims above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/POLINA G PEACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 September 29, 2026
