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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-12, 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 indicative of modifications of a first map 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 indicative of modifications of a second map layer, wherein the first map layer and the second map layer comprise 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);
▪ wherein the first map layer is a parent layer comprising parent layer map object definitions, and the second map layer is a child layer comprising child layer map object definitions which include references to parent layer map objects defined by the parent layer 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 determine various map definitions, links between data and parent/child reference of map objects), and
▪ performing an integrity verification to verify that the references to the parent layer map objects included in the child layer map object definitions modified as indicated by a the second stream are consistent with the parent layer map object definitions modified as indicated by the first stream (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 verify an integrity of the map objects); and
▪ generating an output based at least on a result of the integrity verification (a generic computer functions of data output 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))).
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.
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)).
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);
▪ generating an output (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 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 detection of an inconsistency in the integrity verification (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 detection of the inconsistency, a data item that provides information on at least one child layer map object definition that is not consistent with the parent layer map object definitions, the data item being stored at least temporarily after detection of the inconsistency (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 detection of the inconsistency, the first stream and the second stream prior to triggering the corrective action, wherein monitoring the first stream and the second stream prior comprises ascertaining, based on the data item, that the detected inconsistency remains unaddressed by the modifications indicated by the first stream and the second stream prior in a monitoring time interval after detecting the inconsistency (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)
▪ Claim 6 - wherein the corrective action comprises at least one of: correcting an incorrect reference to at least one of the parent layer map objects in at least one of the child layer map object definitions based at least on the inconsistency; propagating feedback to map layer provision systems of the first and the second map layers based at least on the inconsistency; changing a type of at least one of the modifications from a first type of modification to a second type of modification, wherein the at least one of the modifications is a root cause of the inconsistency, and wherein changing the type resolves the inconsistency; and discarding a duplicate of a map object creation, a duplicate of a map object deletion, and/or a modification of a non-existing map object (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 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 - aggregating at least two modifications of map object definitions relating to a same map object into an aggregate modification, wherein the output is based at least on the aggregate modification, wherein the aggregating is performed based at least on a result of the integrity verification (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 - wherein the integrity verification comprises a logical integrity verification of at least one child layer map object definition modified as indicated by the first stream or at least one parent layer map object definition modified as indicated by the second stream (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 referential inconsistency between different layers).
▪ Claim 9 - wherein the first map layer provision and the second map layer provision system are operative to implement modifications of map object definitions in the first map layer and the second map layer independently of each other (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 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 points of interest 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 modifications of 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 generating the output comprises generating first output for a first map product and second output for a second map product, wherein the integrity verification is performed separately for the first map product and the 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 – generating an 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 1-3, 6-8, 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20230384122) in view of Akbarzadeh et al. (US 20210063199) and in further view of Toroman et al. (US 20210035266) and Kroepfl et al. (US 20210063200).
Regarding claim 1, KIM 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, the first stream comprising data indicative of modifications of a first map layer ([0075]-[0076], [0101]) (see NOTE);
a second stream from a second map layer provision system ([0010] “map layers generated from different versions of sensor data”), the second stream comprising data indicative of modifications of a second map layer ([0117]-[0119])(see NOTE),
wherein the first map layer and the second map layer comprise map object definitions ([0117], [0127], [0140]-[0141]),
wherein the first map layer is a parent layer comprising parent layer map object definitions, and the second map layer is a child layer comprising child layer map object definitions which include references to parent layer map objects defined by the parent layer map object definitions ([0077]-[0079], [0081], [0084]); and
performing, by the processing system, a stream processing of the first stream and the second stream, the stream processing comprising:
performing an compatibility verification to verify that the references to the parent layer map objects included in the child layer map object definitions ([0137], [0141]-[0144]) modified as indicated by a the second stream are correspond with the parent layer map object definitions modified as indicated by the first stream ([0099], [0107], [0114], [0120], [0122]-[0123], [0127], [0130] “determine whether there is another map layer having the same attribute as the first map layer, i.e., a second map layer including the same type of information as the first map layer”); and
generating an output based at least on a result of the compatibility verification ([0113], [0128], [0161]).
KIM does not explicitly teach, however Toroman discloses performing an integrity verification to verify that the references to the parent layer map objects included in the child layer map object definitions modified as indicated by a the second stream are consistent with the parent layer map object definitions modified as indicated by the first stream ([0175]-[0177]).
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 KIM to performing an integrity verification to verify that references to parent layer map objects included in child layer as disclosed by Toroman. Doing so would result in improved machine efficiency and intelligently visualizing large volumes of time series data (Toroman [0059], [0062]).
Further note, the KIM as modified Toroman discloses resolving consistencies between different tiles (wherein a tile contains aggregated data at a certain visualization) and verifying integrity by dispatching change queue to be so processed on all levels so that all changes and updates are being propagated so when the propagation is complete, the values in all tiles should be stabilized and correct (i.e. verified and consistent and included in the child tile object). Thus, it’s construed to be obvious to determine consistency and integrity in tile layers to be applicable to the claimed map layers. However, to further obviate such teachings Kroepfl discloses references to the parent layer map objects included in the child layer map object definitions modified as indicated by a the second stream are consistent with the parent layer map object definitions ([0072]).
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 KIM and Toroman to performing verification of consistency between map references as disclosed by Kroepfl. Doing so would improve the data quality of map data with respect to the data present in any single drive (Kroepfl [0113]).
NOTE I - KIM teaches that data is “map layers generated from different versions of sensor data”, such as LiDAR, radar, camera sensors, etc. ([0007]). (1) Such collected data, specifically for “autonomous driving” is construed to be a stream. (2) Such (streamed) data includes – “least one of zones in which the pieces of the sensor data have been collected and the versions of the pieces of sensor data (e.g., … the type of a sensor, the types of the pieces of the sensor data” [0117].
Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that plurality of map layers generated from different versions and different types of sensors (i.e. LiDAR, radar, camera sensors, as shown in [0007]) implicitly indicates plurality of different streams of data and thus, at least obviously disclose the limitations of -
a first stream from a first map layer provision system and a second stream from a second map layer provision system.
However, to merely obviate such reasoning, Akbarzadeh discloses a first stream from a first map layer provision system and a second stream from a second map layer provision system ([0046]-[0047]) and the first stream comprising data indicative of modifications of a first map layer … and second layer ([0065] “sensor data and/or the outputs that may be used for generating or updating the HD map”, [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of KIM to include first and second data stream as disclosed by Akbarzadeh. Doing so would provide additional data to improve accuracy, update maps when road changes are detected and to more accurately identify lane markings, signs, traffic lights, and/or other information (Akbarzadeh [0065]).
Regarding claim 2, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first stream comprises a first sequence of messages, wherein the second stream comprises a second sequence of messages (Akbarzadeh [0073], [0262]), wherein a message timing of the first sequence of messages is independent of a message timing of the second sequence of messages (Akbarzadeh [0086], [0091], [0096] “for each map layer corresponding to various sensor modalities … camera based registration, LiDAR based registration, RADAR based registration, and/or other registrations may be separately executed”, [0104], [0125], [0182] “include independent thread scheduling capability”, [0195], Toroman [0178]-[0179], Kroepfl [0050]-[0051], [0085], [0124]).
Regarding claim 3, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the stream processing further comprises: triggering a corrective action responsive to detection of an inconsistency in the integrity verification (KIM F12A-B [0081], Akbarzadeh [0066], [0112] “inconsistencies between maps may be removed”, [0203], Kroepfl [0072], [0113]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 6, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the corrective action comprises at least one of:
correcting an incorrect reference to at least one of the parent layer map objects in at least one of the child layer map object definitions based at least on the inconsistency (Kroepfl [0072], Akbarzadeh [0112], [0114]);
propagating feedback to map layer provision systems of the first map layer and the second map layer based at least on the inconsistency (Akbarzadeh [0073]);
changing a type of at least one of the modifications from a first type of modification to a second type of modification, wherein the at least one of the modifications is a root cause of the inconsistency, and wherein changing the type resolves the inconsistency (KIM F12A-B, [0101]-[0104], Kroepfl [0071]-[0072], [0099]); and
discarding a duplicate of a map object creation, a duplicate of a map object deletion, and/or a modification of a non-existing map object (KIM [0141], [0144], [0147], [0150], Akbarzadeh [0091], [0116], Kroepfl [0070], [0090], [0317]).
Regarding claim 7, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the output comprises aggregating at least two modifications of map object definitions relating to a same map object into an aggregate modification, wherein the output is based at least on the aggregate modification, wherein the aggregating is performed based at least on a result of the integrity verification (KIM [0107], [0120], [0127], [0130], [0134], Akbarzadeh [0090], [0097], [0106], [0112]-[0113], Kroepfl [0072], [0113]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 8, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the integrity verification comprises a logical integrity verification of at least one child layer map object definition modified as indicated by the first stream or at least one parent layer map object definition modified as indicated by the second stream (Akbarzadeh [0103], Toroman [0175]-[0177], Kroepfl [0072], [0113]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 12, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first map layer provision and the second map layer provision system are operative to implement modifications of map object definitions in the first map layer and the second map layer independently of each other (Akbarzadeh [0086], [0091], [0096] “for each map layer corresponding to various sensor modalities … camera based registration, LiDAR based registration, RADAR based registration, and/or other registrations may be separately executed”, [0104], [0125], [0182] “include independent thread scheduling capability”, [0195], Kroepfl [0050]-[0051, [0085]).
Regarding claim 13, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the output comprises generating first output for a first map product and second output for a second map product, wherein the integrity verification is performed separately for the first map product and the second map product (Akbarzadeh [0118], [0262], Kroepfl [0105], [0014]).
Regarding claim 14, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising 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 (KIM 0141], [0151]).
Regarding claim 15, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the output includes: generating an 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 (KIM [0149], Akbarzadeh [0127], [0244]).
Regarding claim 16, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the output messages include aggregate information from at least two different map layers (KIM [0008], [0109], [0142], Akbarzadeh [0090], [0097], [0106], [0112]-[0113], Kroepfl [0089], [0097]).
Regarding claim 17, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the output stream: comprises a plurality of output messages (Akbarzadeh [0065]); and has varying delay between at least some output messages from among the plurality of output messages (Akbarzadeh [0066]-[0068]).
Claims 18 and 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 4-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM as modified and in further view of Collins et al. (US 2023/0332923) or FU (US 20240328822).
Regarding claim 4, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the stream processing further comprises: storing, responsive to detection of the inconsistency, a data item that provides information on at least one child layer map object definition that is not consistent with the parent layer map object definitions (Akbarzadeh [0073], [0108], [0262])
KIM as modified does not explicitly teach, however Collins discloses storing, responsive to detection of the inconsistency, a data item that provides information on at least one child layer map object definition that is not consistent with the parent layer map object definitions ([0069]-[0070]), the data item being stored at least temporarily after detection of the inconsistency ([0071], [0087], [0091]).
FU likewise discloses storing, responsive to detection of the inconsistency, a data item that provides information on at least one child layer map object definition that is not consistent with the parent layer map object definitions ([0070]-[0073]), the data item being stored at least temporarily after detection of the inconsistency ([0051]-[0052], [0075], [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of KIM as modified to store objects temporarily after detection of the inconsistency as disclosed by Collins or FU. Doing so would may help improve the self-driving of autonomous vehicles by improving the efficiency of data storage and transmission with respect to self-driving operations and capabilities (Collins [0057]) and provide the vehicles with very precise localization and the possibility to better perceive the environment surrounding the vehicle (FU [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the stream processing further comprises: monitoring, responsive to detection of the inconsistency, the first stream and the second stream prior to triggering the corrective action, wherein monitoring the first stream and the second stream prior comprises ascertaining (Collins [0093], [0100], FU [0051], [0059], [0082]), based on the data item, that the detected inconsistency remains unaddressed by the modifications indicated by the first stream and the second stream prior in a monitoring time interval after detecting the inconsistency (Collins [0088], FU [0059], [0075], [0084]-[0088], [0092]).
Regarding claim 8, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the integrity verification comprises a logical integrity verification of at least one child layer map object definition modified as indicated by the first stream or at least one parent layer map object definition modified as indicated by the second stream (Collins [0073]-[0074], [0077], FU [0059], [0075], [0084]-[0088], [0092]).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM as modified and in further view of Vincenzo Del Fatto, Vincenzo Deufemia, Luca Paolino “Map Integrity Constraint Verification by using Visual Language Parsing”, hereafter VDF.
Regarding claim 9, KIM as modified does not explicitly teach, however VDF discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the integrity verification comprises:
a syntactical integrity verification of the child layer map object definitions and the parent layer map object definitions, respectively modified as indicated by the first stream and the second stream prior, to verify conformity with a set of syntactical rules (p.336 C1, p.338 ¶3.4-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of KIM as modified to include logical and syntactical integrity verification as disclosed by VDF. Doing so would help decrease the number of errors (VDF p.338 C1 ¶3.4).
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM as modified and in further view of PENG et al. (US 20240037823).
Regarding claim 10, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a group of map layers including the child layer and parent layer define an
KIM as modified does not explicitly teach, however PENG discloses an acyclic graph ([0054], [0084]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of KIM as modified to include acyclic graph as disclosed by PENG. Doing so would significantly reduce a computation cost and a time cost for the generation of a (e.g., large-scale) map data (PENG [0083]).
Regarding claim 11, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 10, 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 points of interest layer; a parking information layer; a point of interest layer (Akbarzadeh [0059], [0114], [0126], PENG [0084]-[0085], F4-5A).
Claims 2, 12-13 is/are alternatively or additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM as modified and in further view of Ashman et al. (US 2023/0258472).
Regarding claim 2, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, as disclosed above, Ashman additionally discloses 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 ([0037], [0044], [0051], [0054], [0057] [0064]-[0065], [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of KIM as modified to sequence of messages as disclosed by Ashman. Doing so provides an efficient execution of workloads (Ashman [0104]).
Regarding claim 12, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1 as disclosed above, Ashman additionally discloses, wherein the processing system receives the several streams from several map layer provision systems, each of the several map layer provision systems being associated with a different one of the several map layers, wherein the several map layer provision systems are operative to implement modifications of map object definitions in different map layers independently of each other ([0044] “individual layers … may be downloaded and/or modified independently”, [0054]-[0057], [0069], [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of KIM as modified to implement modifications of map object definitions in different map layers independently of each other as disclosed by Ashman. Doing so provides an efficient execution of workloads (Ashman [0104]).
Regarding claim 13, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1 as disclosed above, Ashman additionally discloses, wherein generating the output comprises generating first output for a first map product and second output for a second map product ([0026]-[0027]), wherein the integrity verification ([0060], [0062], [0166], [0171], [0184]) is performed separately for the first map product and the second map product ([0044] “individual layers … may be downloaded and/or modified independently”, [0056]-[0057], [0069], [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of KIM as modified to perform separate integrity verification as disclosed by Ashman. Doing so provides an efficient execution of workloads (Ashman [0104]).
Claims 6-8 is/are alternatively or additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM as modified and in further view of Chamaa et al. (US 20240400085) and SIEBEL et al. (US 20170006135).
Regarding claim 6, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 3 as disclosed above, Chamaa and SIEBEL additionally discloses, wherein the corrective action comprises at least one of:
correcting an incorrect reference to at least one of the parent layer map objects in at least one of the child layer map object definitions based at least on the inconsistency (Chamaa [0014], [0025], [0034], [0040], [0085], [0095], SIEBEL [0148]-[0151], [0570]);
propagating feedback to map layer provision systems of the first map layer and the second map layer based at least on the inconsistency (Chamaa [0035], [0040], [0085], SIEBEL [0151], [0570]);
changing a type of at least one of the modifications from a first type of modification to a second type of modification, wherein the at least one of the modifications is a root cause of the inconsistency, and wherein changing the type resolves the inconsistency (Chamaa [0035], [0040], [0085], SIEBEL [0528]); and
discarding a duplicate of a map object creation, a duplicate of a map object deletion, and/or a modification of a non-existing map object (Chamaa [0015], [0020], [0025], [0029], SIEBEL [0149], [0569], [0571]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of KIM as modified to correcting an incorrect reference to at least one of the parent layer map objects as disclosed by Chamaa and SIEBEL. Doing so enables efficient determination of changes in data (Chamaa [0011]) and efficiently process and analyze the large volumes of sensor data originating from sensors (SIEBEL [0163]).
Regarding claim 7, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the output comprises aggregating at least two modifications of map object definitions relating to a same map object into an aggregate modification, wherein the output is based at least on the aggregate modification (Chamaa [0037], [0044]-[0045], [0047]-[0048], [0052], [0087]), wherein the aggregating is performed based at least on a result of the integrity verification (Chamaa [0014], [0018], [0024], [0028], [0041], SIEBEL [0171], [0358], [0570]).
Regarding claim 8, KIM as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the integrity verification comprises a logical integrity verification of at least one child layer map object definition modified as indicated by the first stream or at least one parent layer map object definition modified as indicated by the second stream (Chamaa [0025], [0040], [0063], [0089], SIEBEL [0196], [0570]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The independent claims 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). The limitation, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than additionally reciting a “processing system” and receiving the streams from a first and second provision system, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or by a pan and a paper. These additionally recited elements 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).
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.
Applicant's remaining arguments, in regard to the presently amended claims, are addressed in the updated rejections to the claims above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated on PTO-892.
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 June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights