DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 received on 03/12/2025 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-8 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2025 and 03/14/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Adding elements of “trigger point” and “updating data” is recommended by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the local driving environmental data latest and updated from the trigger position should read the local driving environmental data . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a processing program stored in a storage medium should read non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a processing program .
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 19/077,785. Table has been created to compare claim 1 of the instant application and claim 2 of Application No. 19/077,785 side-by-side.
Instant Application (App. No. 19/077,779)
Application No. 19/077,785
1. A processing device performing driving environmental data related processing related to a local driving environmental data provided with data in an autonomous driving mode of a host vehicle, the processing device comprising: a processor; and a storage medium, wherein the processor is configured to:
read the local driving environmental data stored in the storage medium, which includes position information of a node and a link;
set a trigger position ahead of the node on the link where the host vehicle is scheduled to travel; and
update the local driving environmental data stored in the storage medium with probe information recognized by sensing in the host vehicle, starting from the trigger position.
1. A processing device performing driving environmental data related processing related to a local driving environmental data provided with data in an autonomous driving mode of a host vehicle, the processing device comprising: a processor; and a storage medium, wherein the processor is configured to:
provide update to the local driving environmental data of a planned driving area where the host vehicle is planned to travel,[…]
update based on the probe information from a trigger position located before the node on the link of the planned driving area, to the local driving environmental data stored in the storage medium, which includes the position information of the node and link.
As illustrated in the table above, claim 1 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 of Application No. 19/077,785. All matching elements of the claim limitations appear in bold while non-matching elements of the claim limitations are not bolded.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are claim elements of updating map data based on probe data of an autonomous vehicle. The difference between the claims at issue us that the instant application comprises of reading local driving environmental data and setting trigger position. However, Application No. 19/077,785 teaches updating local driving environmental data and a trigger position located before the node on the link of the planned driving area, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention perform the steps of reading and setting prior to updating and obtaining probe information in order to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, it recites a processing method comprising claim limitations similar to those performed by the processing device according to claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 8, it recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a processing program stored in a storage medium, the processing program including instructions for causing a processor the processing device according to claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1-6 and 8 are directed to an apparatus, i.e. a machine.
Claim 7 is directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1-8 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A processing device performing driving environmental data related processing related to a local driving environmental data provided with data in an autonomous driving mode of a host vehicle, the processing device comprising:
a processor; and
a storage medium, wherein the processor is configured to:
read the local driving environmental data stored in the storage medium, which includes position information of a node and a link;
set a trigger position ahead of the node on the link where the host vehicle is scheduled to travel; and
update the local driving environmental data stored in the storage medium with probe information recognized by sensing in the host vehicle, starting from the trigger position.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Reading the local driving environmental data, setting a trigger position and update the local driving environmental data with probe information are equivalent to a mental process of judgement based on observation based on the broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, a person can determine which portion of a map data requires additional data, and mentally update the map data.
Accordingly, claims 1-8 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A processing device performing driving environmental data related processing related to a local driving environmental data provided with data in an autonomous driving mode of a host vehicle, the processing device comprising:
a processor; and
a storage medium, wherein the processor is configured to:
read the local driving environmental data stored in the storage medium, which includes position information of a node and a link;
set a trigger position ahead of the node on the link where the host vehicle is scheduled to travel; and
update the local driving environmental data stored in the storage medium with probe information recognized by sensing in the host vehicle, starting from the trigger position.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “processor” and “storage medium” are recited at a high level of generality and merely performs its intended function of “stored in the storage medium”, thus simply being an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using a generic computer to “reading the local driving environmental data, setting a trigger position and update the local driving environmental data with probe information” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 6 recites additional limitation of provide data to driving control of the host vehicle […], which is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, similar to the representation claim 1 shown above.
Dependent claims 3-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, similar to the representation claim 1 shown above.
In contrast to claim 1 which generally recites “set a trigger position ahead of the node on the link where the host vehicle is scheduled to travel”, dependent claim 2 recites “setting the trigger position of which a section distance from the node is adjusted for each driving scene of the host vehicle on the link”, thus applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, thus integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, as supported by para. [0011] of the specification reproduced below:
[0011] Therefore, the update based on probe information recognized by sensing in the host vehicle is given to the local driving environmental data stored in the storage medium from the trigger position, thereby concentrating the update particularly on the area ahead of the node where data accuracy is required in the autonomous driving mode. This makes it possible to reduce the data capacity of a highly reliable local driving environmental data in the storage medium for provision to the autonomous driving mode.
[0053] Pt is set by adjusting the section distance 5P from the node Mn according to the driving scene of the host vehicle 2 in the link MI. […] Therefore, it is possible to ensure high reliability of the local driving environmental data LM with reduced data capacity to the necessary amount for the driving scene.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-8 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (US20210004363A1), in view of XU (US 20240203246 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bailly teaches a processing device performing driving environmental data related processing related to a local driving environmental data provided with data in an autonomous driving mode of a host vehicle (FIG. 1 HD map system; FIG. 23 Computing system; FIG. 25; para. [0307]: “FIGS. 24A and 24B are a flowchart illustrating an example method 2400 of updating a map based on age of the map […] one or more elements of the HD map system 100 of FIG. 1 and/or the computing system 2350 of FIG. 23 may be configured to perform one or more of the operations of the method 2400. Additionally or alternatively, the computer system 2500 of FIG. 25 may be configured to perform one or more of the operations associated with the method 2400.”; para. [0048]: “generate HD maps that may contain spatial geometric information about the roads on which the autonomous vehicle may travel. […] gather and use data from the lower resolution sensors of the self-driving vehicle itself as it drives around rather than relying on data”), the processing device comprising:
a processor (FIG. 25 Processor 2502); and
a storage medium (FIG. 25 Storage Unit 216; FIG. 23; para. [0300]: “the computing system 2350 may monitor the age of map information based on the statistics stored in the map statistics database 2366”), wherein the processor is configured to:
read the local driving environmental data stored in the storage medium, which includes position information of a map tile (FIG. 24A; para. [0308]: “At block 2405, a map may be obtained. For example, the map may be an HD map, an OMap, an LMap, or portions thereof”; para. [0314]: “At block 2435, the given tile may be designated as ready to be updated.”);
set a trigger position map tile where the host vehicle is scheduled to travel (para. [0315]: “With reference to FIG. 24B, at block 2440, a location indicator may be received from a vehicle. For example, a vehicle may provide a set of driven coordinates that the vehicle […] will traverse”; para. [0319]: “At block 2460, an update message may be transmitted to the vehicle to instruct the vehicle to gather and submit sensor data.”; para. [0216]: “The request may comprise a start location and an end location at which to begin recording data and at which to cease recording data, respectively, for responding to the request for additional data”); and
update the local driving environmental data stored in the storage medium with probe information recognized by sensing in the host vehicle, starting from the trigger position (para. [0321]: “At block 2470, the given tile may be updated based on the received sensor data. For example, the OMap pipeline may update the given tile using the sensor data.”), but fails to specifically teach node and a link.
However, in the same field of endeavor, XU teaches map tile comprising node and a link (para. [0039]: “map database 103a may store node data, road segment data […]] the map tile area may comprise plurality of road segments or links in it. According to some example embodiments, the road segment data records may be links or segments representing roads, streets, or paths, as may be used in calculating a route or recorded route information for determination of one or more personalized routes. The node data may be end points corresponding to the respective links or segments of road segment data. […] map database 103a may contain path segment and node data records […] of the autonomous vehicle road record data”).
Bailly and XU are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of updating map data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified map tile of Bailly to incorporate the teachings of XU and provide node and a link. Doing so would provide map data relevant to plurality of road segments or links, and thus provide accurate and reliable navigation assistance, it is important to predict traffic information for at least one map tile area (XU, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Bailly in view of XU teaches the processing device according to claim 1. Bailly further teaches wherein setting the trigger position includes setting the trigger position of which a section distance from the node is adjusted for each driving scene of the host vehicle on the link (para. [0216]: “The additional data requested may be in general, such as whatever data the selected vehicle 150 is able to sense while traversing the particular location, or may be specific, such as a particular kind of sensor data. The request may comprise a start location and an end location at which to begin recording data and at which to cease recording data”; para. [0217]: “The online HD map system 110 then uses the additional data to update 1414 the HD maps. For example, if the additional data pertains to a lane of a road which has temporarily closed due to construction work nearby, the online HD map system 110 may update the map to indicate that lane of that road as temporarily closed. Alternatively, the additional data may pertain to data already in the online HD map system 110 which has passed a threshold age and therefore requires updating to ensure the HD map is up to date. The online HD map system 110 then sends 1416 the updated HD map to the plurality of vehicles so that they may use a more accurate HD map while driving”; para. [0110]: “In some embodiments, the online HD map system 110 may divide a physical area into geographical regions of different sizes, where the size of each geographical region may be determined based on the amount of information needed for representing the geographical region. For example, a geographical region representing a densely populated area with a large number of streets may represent a smaller physical area compared to a geographical region representing a sparsely populated area with very few streets”, wherein “a lane of a road which has temporarily closed due to construction work nearby” and “different sizes based on data density” indicates trigger position of which a section distance from the node is adjusted for each driving scene of the host vehicle on the link, as the portion of map data to be updated changes).
Regarding claim 6, Bailly in view of XU teaches the processing device according to claim 1. Bailly further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to provide data to driving control of the host vehicle in the autonomous driving mode with the local driving environmental data latest and updated from the trigger position by the probe information in the storage medium (FIG. 24B; para. [0321]: “At block 2470, the given tile may be updated based on the received sensor data. For example, the OMap pipeline may update the given tile using the sensor data. Such updating may follow any updating procedure consistent with the present disclosure, and may include computerized rendering such as raytracing, etc. In some embodiments, the updated tile may be forwarded on to one or more vehicles, which may include the vehicle that submitted the sensor data.”).
Regarding claim 7, it recites a processing method comprising claim limitations similar to those performed by the processing device according to claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 8, it recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a processing program stored in a storage medium, the processing program including instructions for causing a processor (para. [0009]: “one or more tangible non-transitory computer readable media can be configured for storing instructions that in response to being executed by one or more processors, cause a computer system to perform the above-recited operations”) to perform claim limitations similar to those performed by the processing device according to claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (US20210004363A1), in view of XU (US 20240203246 A1), and further in view of WRAY (US 20220315000 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Bailly in view of XU teaches the processing device according to claim 1. Bailly further teaches wherein setting the trigger position includes reading a topological driving environmental data, which is initially stored in the storage medium, as (para. [0048]: “generate HD maps that may contain spatial geometric information about the roads on which the autonomous vehicle may travel. Accordingly, the generated HD maps may include the information that may allow the autonomous vehicle to navigate safely without human intervention. Some embodiments may gather and use data from the lower resolution sensors of the self-driving vehicle itself as it drives around rather than relying on […] HD maps. The autonomous vehicles may have no prior map data for these routes or even for the region”), and updating the local driving environmental data includes replacing and updating the topological driving environmental data, which is initially stored, with a vector driving environmental data generated from the probe information on the link where the host vehicle is traveling for the first time (para. [0321]: “At block 2470, the given tile may be updated based on the received sensor data. For example, the OMap pipeline may update the given tile using the sensor data.”; para. [0143]: “There can be many reasons that lead to localization failure, where some examples include: […] the OMap is out-of-date and should be updated (e.g., a large building/wall originally in the map is now demolished, or a new building is built, etc.).”; para. [0299]: “a map statistics database 2366 (which may store information such as statistics for individual tiles (e.g., a vector with information such as a tile identifier, a timestamp of the sensor data used to create the tile, a relative altitude of the tile, a quantization level of the tile, etc.), statistics for local sectors of a map, statistics for OMaps”; para. [0101]: “The map creation module 410 may be configured to create the HD map data of HD maps from sensor data collected from several vehicles (e.g., 150 a-b) that are driving along various routes.”), but fails to specifically teach the local driving environmental data on the link where the host vehicle is traveling for a first time.
However, in the same field, Wray teaches wherein setting the trigger position includes reading a topological driving environmental data, which is initially stored in the storage medium, as the local driving environmental data on the link where the host vehicle is traveling for a first time (FIG. 12; para. [0023]: “using a standard definition (SD) map for route planning in autonomous driving”; para. [0045]: “the AV may only include an SD map for navigation purposes […] autonomous driving can be performed on roads of an SD map in order to obtain the HD information for subsequent route planning”; para. [0212]: “FIG. 12 is an example of a map 1200 that illustrates using a standard definition (SD) map for route planning in autonomous driving”; para. [0213]: “However, it may be that using the portion 1204, if the AV were competent to drive the portion 1204, may lead to a shorter route (e.g., 1 minute shorter). Thus, exploring and mapping the unmapped portion 1204 can be beneficial”; para. [0214]: ““Exploring” as used in this context can mean that the route-planner can use roads of the SD map that are not in the HD map for route planning and a vehicle can be controlled to traverse these unmapped routes. In another example, an AV may be directed to traverse a road of the SD map.”), and
updating the local driving environmental data includes replacing and updating the topological driving environmental data, which is initially stored, with a vector driving environmental data generated from the probe information on the link where the host vehicle is traveling for the first time (FIG. 12; para. [0214]: “Thus, in aspects of this disclosure, the planner may be configured to explore unmapped roads in order to add HD information for unmapped roads.[…] While the AV is traversing the unmapped roads, sensor data can be used to collect HD information. The HD information can be used to construct an HD map or to augment an HD map of the AV. Via the exploration, new road and lane-segment information can be added to the navigation map. At least a partial HD map can be constructed via the exploration. Information regarding lanes, curbs, speed bumps, stop lines, traffic light locations (in a three-dimensional space), and the like can be added to or can constitute the HD map. In some cases, this information may be identical to what might be provided by a commercially available (e.g., purchased) HD map. The quality of the acquired information may depend on the sensors and detection and identification algorithms of the vehicle. […] More traversals may improve the quality of the HD map for use by decision-making and trajectory planning”).
WRAY is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of updating map data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified controlling of autonomous vehicle of Bailly in view XU to incorporate the teachings of WRAY and use SD map data when HD map data is unavailable. Doing so would allow route planning for autonomous vehicles and allow exploring unmapped area, thus improve the quality of the HD map and autonomous driving (WRAY, para. [0214]).
Regarding claim 4, Bailly in view XU and further in view of WRAY teaches the processing device according to claim 3. Bailly and WRAY further teaches wherein updating the local driving environmental data includes replacing and updating the topological driving environmental data, which is initially stored, with the vector driving environmental data generated from the probe information (Bailly para. [0321]: “At block 2470, the given tile may be updated based on the received sensor data. For example, the OMap pipeline may update the given tile using the sensor data.”; Bailly para. [0217]: “The additional data may be formatted such that the online HD may system 110 can incorporate the additional data into an update to the HD maps. The online HD map system 110 then uses the additional data to update 1414 the HD maps.”; WRAY para. [0214]: “para. [0214]: “Thus, in aspects of this disclosure, the planner may be configured to explore unmapped roads in order to add HD information for unmapped roads.[…] While the AV is traversing the unmapped roads, sensor data can be used to collect HD information. The HD information can be used to construct an HD map or to augment an HD map of the AV”), which includes point cloud information recognized as a point cloud of a driving environment of the host vehicle on the link where the host vehicle is traveling for the first time (WRAY para. [0223]: “The HD sensor data can be recorded as the vehicle is traversing a road of the SD road, before the road is mapped and added to the navigation map. For example, the HD sensor data can include point clouds, images, GPS coordinates, tracked objects, and so on. In an example, data from sensors of other vehicles traversing the road of the SD map can also be obtained”).
Regarding claim 5, Bailly in view XU and further in view of WRAY teaches the processing device according to claim 3. Bailly and WRAY further teaches wherein setting the trigger position includes reading the vector driving environmental data updated after an initial travel of the host vehicle on the link where the host vehicle is re-traveling (Bailly FIG. 24A; Bailly para. [0314]: “At block 2435, the given tile may be designated as ready to be updated. For example, if the given tile is stale (e.g., the sensor data used to generate/update the tile is beyond a certain age), an identifier of the given tile may be designated within an update database as being ready to be updated.”; WRAY para. [0214]: “The HD information can be used to construct an HD map or to augment an HD map of the AV. Via the exploration, new road and lane-segment information can be added to the navigation map. At least a partial HD map can be constructed via the exploration. Information regarding lanes, curbs, speed bumps, stop lines, traffic light locations (in a three-dimensional space), and the like”), and updating the local driving environmental data includes updating the vector driving environmental data in the storage medium, which has been updated after the initial travel, by merging the probe information on the link where the host vehicle is re- traveling (Bailly FIG. 24B; Bailly para. [0321]: “At block 2470, the given tile may be updated based on the received sensor data. For example, the OMap pipeline may update the given tile using the sensor data. Such updating may follow any updating procedure consistent with the present disclosure, and may include computerized rendering such as raytracing, etc.”; Bailly para. [0055]: “The online HD map system 110 may be configured to receive sensor data that may be captured by vehicle sensors 105 (e.g., 105 a-105 d) of the vehicles 150 and combine data received from the vehicles 150 to generate and maintain HD maps”; Bailly para. [0145]: “online HD map system 110 analyzes the summaries of the verification results to determine whether the existing landmark maps should be updated, requests information needed to update the existing landmark maps from the vehicles 150, and updates the existing landmark maps using the requested information”; WRAY para. [0214]: “More traversals may improve the quality of the HD map for use by decision-making and trajectory planning.”, wherein update indicates merging and OMap pipeline indicates vector driving environmental data).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wheeler (US20180188045A1) teaches an online system build a high definition map for geographical regions based on sensor data captured by a plurality of vehicles driving through the geographical regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights