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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-20 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 1-20 recite a method 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 –
▪ effecting, by a map layer provision system that provides map layer data, modifications of the map layer data (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 analyze modifications for maps), wherein:
▪ the map layer data comprises map object definitions, wherein the map object definitions include references to parent layer map objects defined by one or several parent layers of the map layer and/or wherein map objects defined by the map object definitions are referenced by child layer map object definitions in one or several child layers of the 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 determine various map definitions and parent/child reference of map objects), and
▪ the modifications comprise at least one of a change of an existing map object definition of the map object definitions, an addition of a new map object definition to the map object definitions, a deletion of an existing map object definition from the 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 determine additions and deletion of outdated map objects); and
▪ providing, by the map layer provision system, data indicative of the modifications in the map layer data for use in performing at least one action based at least on the map layer data as modified by the modifications, wherein the data indicative of the modifications are provided in a 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 analyze map modifications and update a trip accordingly).
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 15 and 18, 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:
▪ map layer provision system (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 system, amount to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception);
▪ modifications are provided in a stream (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 15 additionally recite “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and claim 18 recites “a memory; and at least one processing circuit.” 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, 15 and 18 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, 15, 18 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, 15 and 18 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.
Invention Could be Performed Manually
It is conceivable that the invention could be performed manually without the aid of machine and/or computer. For example, claimed functionality can be performed manually, by receiving and analyzing updates to different map layers. Each of these features could be performed manually and/or with the aid of a simple generic computer to facilitate the transmission of data.
See also Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., and In re Venner, which stand for the concept that automating manual activity and/or applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices to accomplish the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Here, applicant is merely claiming computers to facilitate and/or automate functions which used to be commonly performed by a human.
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) "[a]pplying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years…"). The combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.
In In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04, III Automating a Manual Activity.
MPEP 2144.04 III - Automating a Manual Activity and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) further stand for and provide motivation for using technology, hardware, computer, or server to automate a manual activity.
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, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no limitations in any of the claims that transform the exception (i.e., the abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 15 and 18 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 2-14, 16-17, 19-20 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 2-4, 16-17, 19-20:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ claims 2, 16 and 19 - wherein the stream comprises a sequence of messages, each of the messages being associated with one of the modifications, wherein the map layer provision system generates and outputs each of the messages in the sequence responsive to effecting the modification with which the message is associated (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 information and determine modifications.)
▪ claims 3, 17 and 20 - wherein each of the messages comprises a unique identifier of a map object modified by the modification with which the message is associated and/or version data for the 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 different versions of map layers);
▪ Claim 4 - wherein the map layer provision system output the messages in the sequence with a timing that is independent of modifications of parent layer map object definitions of the parent layer map objects and/or modifications of the child layer map object definitions (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);
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 2-4, 16-17, 19-20 are ineligible.
With respect to claims 5-12:
Dependent claims 5-12, which include limitations commensurate in scope with the dependent claims 2-4, 16-17, 19-20, recite a judicial exception.
▪ Claim 5 - wherein the map layer provision system effects at least one first modification of the modifications responsive to at least one inconsistency of the map layer data with parent layer map object definitions of the parent layer map objects and/or the child layer map object definitions, wherein the at least one first modification rectifies the at least one inconsistency - (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 6 - receiving, by the map layer provision system, one or several parent layer streams indicative of modifications of parent layer map object definitions that define the parent layer map objects, wherein the at least one inconsistency comprises a referential inconsistency caused by at least one of the modifications of parent layer map object definitions (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 7 - wherein the stream and the one or several parent layer streams are asynchronous (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 8 - wherein the map layer provision system is operative to effect at least one second modification of the modifications at a time that is independent of the modifications of parent layer map object definitions (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 independently evaluate layers of data).
▪ Claims 9 -11 – wherein the at least one inconsistency comprises a referential inconsistency caused by at least one of the modifications; receiving a notification indicative of the at least one inconsistency from a processing system, wherein the processing system processes the stream to perform an integrity verification of the map layer data as modified by the modifications receiving a notification indicative of the at least one inconsistency from a processing system, wherein the processing system processes the stream to perform an integrity verification of the map layer data as modified by the modifications; and processing, by the processing system, the stream and the one or several parent layer streams to perform 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 evaluate inconsistencies in received data and verify integrity of information);
▪ Claim 1 – providing, by the map layer provision system, an acknowledgment to another map layer provision system of at least one of the one or several parent layers to acknowledge rectification of the inconsistency by the at least one first modification (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 generate acknowledgment of information).
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 5-12 are thus, also patent ineligible for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claims 13-14:
▪ Claim 13 – wherein the map layer is comprised by an acyclic graph of map layers, wherein the acyclic graph comprises a base map layer defining nodes and links of a navigable network, wherein the one or several parent layers comprise one or both of: the base map layer; a further map layer that references the nodes and the links defined by the base map layer, the further map layer being 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 14 - performing the action based at least on the stream, optionally wherein the action comprises one, several, or all of: route search; route guidance; an automated driving function; 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).
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 13-14 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 1-4, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant’s admitted prior art - Ashman et al. (US 2023/0258472) (see WO 2023154199 in IDS filed 12/15/2024) in view of SIEBEL et al. (US 2017/0006135).
Regarding claim 1, Ashman teaches a method of modifying map layer data, the method comprising:
effecting, by a map layer provision system that provides map layer data ([0023]-[0025], [0028]), modifications of the map layer data ([0026]-[0027], [0032]), wherein:
the map layer data comprises map object definitions ([0046]), wherein the map object definitions include references to parent layer map objects defined by one or several parent layers of the map layer ([0042]) and/or wherein map objects defined by the map object definitions are referenced by child layer map object definitions in one or several child layers of the map layer ([0050]), and
the modifications comprise at least one of a change of an existing map object definition of the map object definitions, an addition of a new map object definition ([0061]) to the map object definitions, a deletion of an existing map object definition from the map object definitions ([0027], [0057]-[0058]); and
providing, by the map layer provision system, data indicative of the modifications in the map layer data ([0037]) for use in performing at least one action based at least on the map layer data as modified by the modifications ([0066], [0085])
Ashman does not explicitly teach, however SIEBEL discloses wherein the data indicative of the modifications are provided in a stream ([0229], [0243], [0247]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ashman to include stream of modifications as disclosed by SIEBEL. Doing so would provide continuous, extremely fast, sophisticated real-time processing of large volumes of high-velocity data (SIEBEL [0243], [0246]).
Regarding claim 15, Ashman teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processing circuit, cause the at least one processing circuit to perform a method of modifying map layer data, the method comprising: effecting modifications of map layer data, wherein: the map layer data comprises map object definitions, wherein the map object definitions include references to parent layer map objects defined by one or several parent layers of the map layer and/or wherein map objects defined by the map object definitions are referenced by child layer map object definitions in one or several child layers of the map layer, and the modifications comprise at least one of a change of an existing map object definition of the map object definitions, an addition of a new map object definition to the map object definitions, a deletion of an existing map object definition from the map object definitions; and providing data indicative of the modifications in the map layer data for use in performing at least one action based at least on the map layer data as modified by the modifications, wherein the data indicative of the modifications are provided in a stream.
Claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, Ashman teaches a system for modifying map layer data, the system comprising: a memory; and at least one processing circuit, the at least one processing circuit configured to:
effect modifications of map layer data, wherein: the map layer data comprises map object definitions, wherein the map object definitions include references to parent layer map objects defined by one or several parent layers of the map layer and/or wherein map objects defined by the map object definitions are referenced by child layer map object definitions in one or several child layers of the map layer, and
the modifications comprise at least one of a change of an existing map object definition of the map object definitions, an addition of a new map object definition to the map object definitions, a deletion of an existing map object definition from the map object definitions; and
provide data indicative of the modifications in the map layer data for use in performing at least one action based at least on the map layer data as modified by the modifications, wherein the data indicative of the modifications are provided in a stream.
Claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claims 2, 16 and 19, Ashman teaches the method, the medium and the system wherein the stream comprises a sequence of messages, each of the messages being associated with one of the modifications, wherein the map layer provision system generates and outputs each of the messages in the sequence responsive to effecting the modification with which the message is associated (Ashman [0057]-[0058], SIEBEL [0132], [0152] “messages may include data … time-series”; “Based on the message type … place a message into an inbound queue”, [0327], [0345]-[0346]).
Regarding claims 3, 17 and 20, Ashman teaches the method, the medium and the system method of claim 2, wherein each of the messages comprises a unique identifier of a map object modified by the modification with which the message is associated and/or version data for the map layer (Ashman [0037], [0041]-[0042], [0051], [0059], [0064]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 4, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the map layer provision system output the messages in the sequence with a timing that is independent of modifications of parent layer map object definitions of the parent layer map objects and/or modifications of the child layer map object definitions (Ashman [0044] “individual layers … may be downloaded and/or modified independently”, [0056]-[0057], [0069], [0118], SIEBEL [0235], [0243], [0327]).
Regarding claim 14, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising performing the action based at least on the stream, optionally wherein the action comprises one, several, or all of: route search; route guidance; an automated driving function; traffic flow control (Ashman [0081], [0083], [0085]).
Claims 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashman as modified and in further view of the applicant’s admitted prior art – BAIK et al. (EP 3 832 422) (see IDS filed 12/15/2024).
Regarding claim 5, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the map layer provision system effects at least one first modification of the modifications responsive to at least one inconsistency of the map layer data
Ashman as modified does not explicitly teach, however BAIK discloses effects at least one first modification of the modifications responsive to at least one inconsistency of the map layer data with parent layer map object definitions of the parent layer map objects and/or the child layer map object definitions, wherein the at least one first modification rectifies the at least one inconsistency ([0067]-[0069], [0104], [0110], [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ashman as modified to determine inconsistency of the map layer data with parent layer map object definitions as disclosed by BAIK. Doing so would allow for a reliability of the precise map to be improved, and thus, enhancing the safety of the vehicle receiving verified precise map data (BAIK [0015]).
NOTE in analogous prior art CAJIAS et al. (US 2021/0097057) likewise disclose claim 5 in [0077]-[0078], [0092] and further obviate the teaching of Ashman and SIEBEL.
Regarding claim 6, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising receiving, by the map layer provision system, one or several parent layer streams indicative of modifications of parent layer map object definitions that define the parent layer map objects (Ashman [0060], [0118], [0184], BAIK [0067]-[0069], [0104], [0110], [0113]), wherein the at least one inconsistency comprises a referential inconsistency caused by at least one of the modifications of parent layer map object definitions (SIEBEL [0151], [0570]).
Regarding claim 7, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the stream and the one or several parent layer streams are asynchronous (SIEBEL [0316], [0327], [0353] “stream processing … support asynchronous and distributed processing with autonomous distributed workers”, [0400]).
Regarding claim 8, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the map layer provision system is operative to effect at least one second modification of the modifications at a time that is independent of the modifications of parent layer map object definitions (Ashman [0044] “individual layers … may be downloaded and/or modified independently”, [0056]-[0057], [0069], [0118], SIEBEL [0235], [0243], [0327]).
Regarding claim 9, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the at least one inconsistency comprises a referential inconsistency caused by at least one of the modifications (SIEBEL [0151], [0570]).
Regarding claim 10, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising receiving a notification indicative of the at least one inconsistency from a processing system, wherein the processing system processes the stream to perform an integrity verification of the map layer data as modified by the modifications (Ashman [0060], [0062], [0166], [0171], [0184], SIEBEL [0151], [0567], [0570]).
Regarding claim 11, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
receiving a notification indicative of the at least one inconsistency from a processing system, wherein the processing system processes the stream to perform an integrity verification of the map layer data as modified by the modifications (Ashman [0060], [0062], [0166], [0171], [0184], SIEBEL [0151], [0567], [0570]); and
processing, by the processing system, the stream and the one or several parent layer streams to perform the integrity verification (Ashman [0060], [0062], SIEBEL [0151], [0570]).
Regarding claim 12, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising providing, by the map layer provision system, an acknowledgment to another map layer provision system of at least one of the one or several parent layers to acknowledge rectification of the inconsistency by the at least one first modification (Ashman [0060], [0062], [0118], [0184], SIEBEL [0160], [0375], [0427], [0567]-[0568], BAIK [0067]-[0069], [0104], [0110], [0113]).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashman as modified and in further view of PENG et al. (US 20240037823).
Regarding claim 13, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the map layer is comprised by an
the base map layer (Ashman [0056], SIEBEL [0177], [0570]); a further map layer that references the nodes and the links defined by the base map layer, the further map layer being different from the base map layer (Ashman [0027], [0040]).
Ashman as modified does not explicitly teach, however PENG discloses an acyclic graph and further map layer being different from the base map layer ([0054], [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ashman 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]).
Claims 6-11 and 4 is/are alternatively or additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashman as modified and in further view of CAJIAS et al. (US 2021/0097057).
Regarding claim 6, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 5 as disclosed above, CAJIAS additionally or alternatively, further discloses comprising receiving, by the map layer provision system, one or several parent layer streams indicative of modifications of parent layer map object definitions that define the parent layer map objects, wherein the at least one inconsistency comprises a referential inconsistency caused by at least one of the modifications of parent layer map object definitions ([0075]-[0079], [0085], F6C:623).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ashman as modified to receive data indicative of modifications of parent layer map object definitions that define the parent layer map objects as disclosed by CAJIAS. Doing so would provide an efficient protocol to update map data of the region without affecting map data of other regions (CAJIAS [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the stream and the one or several parent layer streams are asynchronous (SIEBEL [0316], [0327], [0353] “stream processing … support asynchronous and distributed processing with autonomous distributed workers”, [0400]).
Regarding claim 8, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the map layer provision system is operative to effect at least one second modification of the modifications at a time that is independent of the modifications of parent layer map object definitions (Ashman [0044] “individual layers … may be downloaded and/or modified independently”, [0056]-[0057], [0069], [0118], SIEBEL [0235], [0243], [0327], CAJIAS [0046]).
Regarding claim 11, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
receiving a notification indicative of the at least one inconsistency from a processing system, wherein the processing system processes the stream to perform an integrity verification of the map layer data as modified by the modifications (Ashman [0060], [0062], [0166], [0171], [0184], SIEBEL [0151], [0567], [0570], CAJIAS [0077]-[0078]); and
processing, by the processing system, the stream and the one or several parent layer streams to perform the integrity verification (Ashman [0060], [0062], SIEBEL [0151], [0570], CAJIAS [0079]).
Regarding claim 4, Ashman as modified teaches the method of claim 2 as disclosed above, CAJIAS additionally or alternatively, further discloses, wherein the map layer provision system output the messages in the sequence with a timing that is independent of modifications of parent layer map object definitions of the parent layer map objects and/or modifications of the child layer map object definitions ([0046], [0078]-[0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ashman as modified to include sequence with a timing that is independent of modifications of parent layer map as disclosed by CAJIAS. Doing so would provide an efficient protocol to update map data of the region without affecting map data of other regions (CAJIAS [0046]).
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 January 11, 2026