DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits.
Claims 1, 9-10, and 12-13 have been amended via Preliminary Amendment.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements that were filed on 03 March 2025 and 12 February 2026 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “a second node” and “a specific first node” in lines 2-3. Since claim 1, upon which claim 2 is dependent, also recites “a second node” and “a specific first node” in lines 22-23, it is unclear as to whether the recitations of “a second node” and “a specific first node” in claim 2 refer to the same corresponding elements as previously recited in claim 1. The examiner recommends amending the aforementioned portions of claim 2 to instead recite “[[a]]the second node” and “[[a]]the specific first node”, if the Applicant’s intent is for the aforementioned elements recited in claim 2 to refer to the corresponding elements previously recited in claim 1. Otherwise, if the Applicant’s intent is for the recitations of “second node” and “specific first node” in claim 2 to refer to different elements than the recitations of “second node” and “specific first node” in claim 1, the examiner recommends amending the claim language to clearly indicate that these are different elements.
Claim 7 recites “the association information indicates the correspondence, based on the first map and the second map which differ in coordinates of the first node to which a first link indicating the merging lane is connected and which differ in coordinates of the second node to which the second link corresponding to the first link is connected, respectively” in lines 4-8. The phrasing of this portion of claim 7 is considered unclear. In particular, the claim recites “… the first map and the second map which differ in coordinates of the first node”. As best understood by the examiner in view of claim 1, upon which claim 7 is dependent, the first node is only included in the first map and is not included in the second map. As such, it is unclear how the first map and the second map may “differ in coordinates of the first node” if the first node does not exist on the second map at all. Likewise, the claim recites “…the first map and the second map… which differ in coordinates of the second node”, wherein, as best understood by the examiner in view of claim 1, upon which claim 7 is dependent, the second node is only included in the second map and is not included in the first map. As such, it is unclear how the first map and the second map may “differ in coordinates of the second node” if the second node does not exist on the first map at all. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting claim 7 as reciting a situation in which the coordinates of the first node in the first map differ from the coordinates of the second node in the second map.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more:
Step One: Does the Claim Fall Within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-13 are directed towards a machine (an apparatus). Claim 14 is directed towards a process (a method).
Step Two A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claims recited are directed towards “determining whether the first node information included in the obtained first route information is associated with at least one second link, based on the first route information and association information indicating a correspondence between the first node information in the first map and the second link in the second map” and “creating second route information in a second route on the second map which corresponds to the first route, based on the second link determined with which the first node information is associated and based on the obtained second map, the second route information including the second link”. This is an abstract idea, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind. The claimed steps of determining whether a first node is associated with at least one second link and creating second route information corresponding to a first route are recited broadly enough to be performed by a human mentally comparing two different maps and determining which elements of one map are associated with specific elements of the other map.
The claims are further directed towards “when a second node on the second map which corresponds to a specific first node on the first map does not include a second outflow link that flows out of the second node on the second map which corresponds to a first outflow link that flows out of the specific first node, the association information includes information for associating, with the first outflow link, an other second outflow link that flows out of an other second node in a vicinity of the second node, and when the second node does not include a second inflow link that flows into the second node on the second map which corresponds to a first inflow link that flows into the specific first node, the association information includes information for associating, with the first inflow link, an other second inflow link that flows into an other second node in the vicinity of the second node”. This is an abstract idea, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind. The claimed step of associating links in a second map with links in a first map is broad enough to be performed by a human mentally comparing two different maps, noticing discrepancies in information between the two maps, and mentally determining an appropriate association between the two maps (e.g., by associating a feature in the second map with a closest similar feature in the first map).
The performance of these steps as recited in the independent claims may be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind.
Step Two A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. As per independent claims 1 and 14, the claimed steps of determining whether a first node is associated with at least one second link, creating second route information corresponding to a first route, and associating links in a second map with links in a first map are broad enough to be performed mentally or by pen and paper, as set forth above. Additional limitations recited in the claims include obtaining first route information in a first route calculated using a first map and obtaining a second map including road shape information represented by a format different from a format of the first map. These steps are considered insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of merely routine data gathering, and do not amount to integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The structural elements recited in the claims include a processor and a memory. These structures perform functions which are insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and well-known data processing and, therefore, do not amount to integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These functions that the structures are performing are well-understood, routine and conventional activity and, therefore, the recitation of these structures does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)).
The technological components are recited at such a high level of generality to amount to a generic computer structure for performing generic computer functions which is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Although technological elements are included for performing the claimed steps, a mental process performed in a computer environment is still considered a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Step Two B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept
No. There are no additional elements recited in the independent claims that amount to significantly more than performing the abstract idea. The technological components recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional computing functions of mere data gathering and well-known data processing (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The claims do not require any particular technological elements besides generic computer components performing functions which are well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
It is noted that the claimed limitations set forth obtaining data and processing data which, as noted above, can be done mentally or with the aid of generic and well-known computer components, but none of the claimed limitations actively set forth wherein the association of links between different maps is performed in a manner which could be considered an inventive concept or integration in a practical application. In other words, the claims recite limitations which could be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and do not require the aid of any particular machine other than generic and well-known physical aids or computer components.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are merely further defining the abstract idea by providing additional limitations on how the abstract idea is performed, and are not adding anything to the abstract idea set forth in the independent claims such that the invention will amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claims 2, 5-7, 9-10, and 12-13 , the claims are merely further defining how first links in a first map are associated with second links in a second map in different particular situations, wherein each of the aforementioned claims recite steps that could reasonably be performed by a well-trained human without the need of a particular technological element.
As per claims 3-4, 8, and 11, the claims are merely further defining the types of information that are obtained and used for performing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chikamori et al. (US 2022/0221290), hereinafter referred to as Chikamori, as cited in the Applicant’s IDS filed 12 February 2026.
Regarding claim 1, Chikamori teaches:
A route information creation apparatus ("To achieve such an object, one aspect of the present invention provides a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising a route data conversion program for acquiring a second route on a second map that matches a first route on a first map" – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0020),
comprising: a processor to execute a program; and a memory to store the program ("As shown in FIG. 1, the controller 16 includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 16A including a route data conversion program 16B, and the data compression program 16B, when executed by the map position identifying unit 32 (processor), executes the after-mentioned route data conversion method." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0118);
which, when executed by the processor, performs the processes of: obtaining first route information including at least first node information including information for determining an inflow link or an outflow link ("a first map, the first route being expressed as route nodes (N) and route links (M), the route nodes being defined by latitude, longitude, and altitude, the route links (M) connecting the route nodes" – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0020)
in a first route calculated using a first map including road shape information on a per road basis ("the first route being expressed as route nodes (N) and route links (M), the route nodes being defined by latitude, longitude, and altitude, the route links (M) connecting the route nodes" – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0020);
obtaining a second map including road shape information represented by a format different from a format of the first map ("the second map including a lane expressed as lane nodes (C) and lane links (D), the lane nodes being defined by the latitude, longitude, and altitude, the lane links connecting the lane nodes" – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0020);
determining whether the first node information included in the obtained first route information is associated with at least one second link ("According to this aspect, the lane nodes that match the route nodes with respect to the altitude are extracted, and thus the second route is acquired." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0007),
based on the first route information and association information indicating a correspondence between the first node information in the first map and the second link in the second map ("In the above aspect, preferably, in the step of extracting the lane nodes, extracting areas (Pc) containing the route nodes from an intermediate map including the areas (P) centered on the lane nodes and area links (Q) connecting the areas, thereby extracting the lane nodes whose latitude, longitude, and altitude match the latitude, longitude, and altitude of the route nodes respectively." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0008),
creating second route information in a second route on the second map which corresponds to the first route ("Accordingly, even if the first route passes through multi-level crossing roads, it is possible to substantially determine which one of the multi-level crossing roads the first route passes through based on the altitude, so that an appropriate second route can be acquired." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0007),
based on the second link determined with which the first node information is associated and based on the obtained second map ("According to this aspect, even if the route nodes on the first map do not completely match the lane nodes on the second map, it is possible to extract the lane nodes that match the route nodes." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0009),
the second route information including the second link ("the second map including a lane expressed as lane nodes (C) and lane links (D), the lane nodes being defined by the latitude, longitude, and altitude, the lane links connecting the lane nodes" – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0020),
wherein when a second node on the second map which corresponds to a specific first node on the first map does not include a second outflow link that flows out of the second node on the second map which corresponds to a first outflow link that flows out of the specific first node, the association information includes information for associating, with the first outflow link, an other second outflow link that flows out of an other second node in a vicinity of the second node ("In step ST1, it is possible to substantially extract the lane nodes C whose latitude, longitude and altitude match the latitude, longitude and altitude of the navigation map nodes N respectively by extracting the cuboid areas P that contain the navigation map nodes N. In this way, by using the cuboid areas P, it is possible to extract the lane nodes C that match the navigation map nodes N even if the navigation map nodes N do not completely match the lane nodes C." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0129) (The examiner notes that Chikamori is understood as extracting regions containing navigation map nodes (i.e., first nodes) and using the extracted regions to extract lane nodes (i.e., second nodes) that are associated with navigation map nodes. In this manner, Chikamori is capable of associating features of a navigation map (i.e., a first map) with features of a lane map (i.e., a second map) by searching a region (i.e., a vicinity) near the respective nodes, even in the absence of an exact match),
and when the second node does not include a second inflow link that flows into the second node on the second map which corresponds to a first inflow link that flows into the specific first node, the association information includes information for associating, with the first inflow link, an other second inflow link that flows into an other second node in the vicinity of the second node ("After that, the map linking unit 54 extracts two lane nodes C arranged at the centers of the acquired two reference cuboid areas Pc. After that, the map linking unit 54 connects the extracted two lane nodes C by tracing the lane link D. The map linking unit 54 executes such a process for all the area links Q included in the route of the intermediate data, thereby acquiring the route S on the high-precision map. Upon completing acquisition of the route S on the high-precision map, the map linking unit 54 ends the linking process." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0122).
Regarding claim 2, Chikamori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Chikamori further teaches:
wherein when a second node on the second map which corresponds to a specific first node on the first map includes the second outflow link on the second map which corresponds to the first outflow link that flows out of the specific first node, the association information includes information for associating the first outflow link with the second outflow link ("To achieve such an object, one aspect of the present invention provides a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising a route data conversion program for acquiring a second route on a second map that matches a first route on a first map, the first route being expressed as route nodes (N) and route links (M), the route nodes being defined by latitude, longitude, and altitude, the route links (M) connecting the route nodes, the second map including a lane expressed as lane nodes (C) and lane links (D), the lane nodes being defined by the latitude, longitude, and altitude, the lane links connecting the lane nodes" – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0020),
and when the second node includes the second inflow link on the second map which corresponds to the first inflow link that flows into the specific first node, the association information includes information for associating the first inflow link with the second inflow link ("To achieve such an object, one aspect of the present invention provides a route data conversion device (16) for acquiring a second route on a second map that matches a first route on a first map, the first route being expressed as route nodes (N) and route links (M), the route nodes being defined by latitude, longitude, and altitude, the route links (M) connecting the route nodes, the second map including a lane expressed as lane nodes (C) and lane links (D), the lane nodes being defined by the latitude, longitude, and altitude, the lane links connecting the lane nodes" – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Chikamori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Chikamori further teaches:
wherein the first node information includes first node coordinates that are coordinates of a first node ("the first route being expressed as route nodes (N) and route links (M), the route nodes being defined by latitude, longitude, and altitude, the route links (M) connecting the route nodes" – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0020),
a first inflow link orientation that is an orientation of the first inflow link that flows into the first node in the first route, and a first outflow link orientation that is an orientation of the first outflow link that flows out of the first node in the first route ("As shown in FIG. 2A, the navigation map DB stores, as information on the roads on the map, information on points (navigation map nodes N: see black circles in FIG. 2A) arranged on each road and line segments (navigation map links M: see solid lines in FIG. 2A) each connecting two of the navigation map nodes N." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0060) (The examiner notes that the navigation map links as taught by Chikamori define the orientation of the segments connecting consecutive route nodes),
and the association information includes information for associating a pair of the first node and the first inflow link orientation with the second link, and information for associating a pair of the first node and the first outflow link orientation with the second link ("In this way, the map linking unit 54 generates the rectangles I such that the rectangles I contain the navigation map nodes N and the navigation map links M, and calculates the altitude of the rectangles I by insertion into the navigation map nodes N. Accordingly, in ST15, it is possible to extract the lane nodes C whose latitude, longitude and altitude match the latitude, longitude and altitude of the navigation map nodes N by acquiring the delimiting line nodes A contained in the rectangles I." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0140).
Regarding claim 4, Chikamori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Chikamori further teaches:
wherein the second map includes road shape information on a per lane basis ("the second map including a lane expressed as lane nodes (C) and lane links (D), the lane nodes being defined by the latitude, longitude, and altitude, the lane links connecting the lane nodes" – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 9, Chikamori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Chikamori further teaches:
wherein when the second map does not include the second link corresponding to a first link on the first map, the processes comprise creating the second route information in the second route up to the second link corresponding to the first link on the first map ("The map linking unit 54 executes such a process for all the area links Q included in the route of the intermediate data, thereby acquiring the route S on the high-precision map. Upon completing acquisition of the route S on the high-precision map, the map linking unit 54 ends the linking process." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0122).
Regarding claim 11, Chikamori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Chikamori further teaches:
wherein the first route information includes type information indicating a type of the first map, and the association information is information corresponding to the type information ("To achieve such an object, one aspect of the present invention provides a route data conversion method for acquiring a second route (S) on a second map that matches a first route (R) on a first map, the first route being expressed as route nodes (N) and route links (M), the route nodes being defined by latitude, longitude, and altitude, the route links connecting the route nodes" – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 12, Chikamori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Chikamori further teaches:
wherein when it is determined that the first node information is associated with the second link including the second inflow link and the second outflow link, the processes comprise selecting at least one of the second inflow link or the second outflow link, according to a predefined second link selection rule ("In step ST3, the map linking unit 54 first acquires, with respect to each area link Q included in the route of the intermediate data, two reference cuboid areas Pc connected by the area link Q. After that, the map linking unit 54 extracts two lane nodes C arranged at the centers of the acquired two reference cuboid areas Pc. After that, the map linking unit 54 connects the extracted two lane nodes C by tracing the lane link D. The map linking unit 54 executes such a process for all the area links Q included in the route of the intermediate data, thereby acquiring the route S on the high-precision map." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0122).
Regarding claim 13, Chikamori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Chikamori further teaches:
wherein when the first node has a plurality of first outflow links and the first inflow link ("Further, the navigation map nodes N are appropriately provided at characteristic points such as intersections, merging points, and curves." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0060) (The examiner notes that Figs. 6A and 6B of Chikamori as shown below illustrate instances of nodes which represent branching points (i.e., nodes with a plurality of outflow links and one inflow link)),
the processes comprise determining that each of the first outflow links is associated with the second link ("In step ST3, the map linking unit 54 first acquires, with respect to each area link Q included in the route of the intermediate data, two reference cuboid areas Pc connected by the area link Q. After that, the map linking unit 54 extracts two lane nodes C arranged at the centers of the acquired two reference cuboid areas Pc. After that, the map linking unit 54 connects the extracted two lane nodes C by tracing the lane link D. The map linking unit 54 executes such a process for all the area links Q included in the route of the intermediate data, thereby acquiring the route S on the high-precision map." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0122),
when the first node has a plurality of first inflow links and the first outflow link ("Further, the navigation map nodes N are appropriately provided at characteristic points such as intersections, merging points, and curves." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0060) (The examiner notes that Figs. 6A and 6B of Chikamori as shown below illustrate instances of nodes which represent merging points (i.e., nodes with a plurality of inflow links and one outflow link)),
the processes comprise determining that each of the first inflow links is associated with the second link ("In step ST3, the map linking unit 54 first acquires, with respect to each area link Q included in the route of the intermediate data, two reference cuboid areas Pc connected by the area link Q. After that, the map linking unit 54 extracts two lane nodes C arranged at the centers of the acquired two reference cuboid areas Pc. After that, the map linking unit 54 connects the extracted two lane nodes C by tracing the lane link D. The map linking unit 54 executes such a process for all the area links Q included in the route of the intermediate data, thereby acquiring the route S on the high-precision map." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0122),
and when the first node has the first inflow link and the first outflow link ("Further, the navigation map nodes N are appropriately provided at characteristic points such as intersections, merging points, and curves." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0060) (The examiner notes that Figs. 6A and 6B of Chikamori as shown below illustrate instances of nodes which represent a non-intersecting portion of a road (i.e., nodes with one inflow link and one outflow link)),
the processes comprise determining that the first inflow link and the first outflow link are associated with the second link ("In step ST3, the map linking unit 54 first acquires, with respect to each area link Q included in the route of the intermediate data, two reference cuboid areas Pc connected by the area link Q. After that, the map linking unit 54 extracts two lane nodes C arranged at the centers of the acquired two reference cuboid areas Pc. After that, the map linking unit 54 connects the extracted two lane nodes C by tracing the lane link D. The map linking unit 54 executes such a process for all the area links Q included in the route of the intermediate data, thereby acquiring the route S on the high-precision map." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0122).
PNG
media_image1.png
573
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikamori in view of Ishikawa (US 2017/0018189), hereinafter referred to as Ishikawa. Ishikawa is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of route planning for a vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, Chikamori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Chikamori further teaches:
the association information indicates the correspondence, based on the first map and the second map which differ in coordinates of the first node to which a first link indicating the merging lane is connected, and which differ in coordinates of the second node to which the second link corresponding to the first link is connected, respectively ("In step ST1, it is possible to substantially extract the lane nodes C whose latitude, longitude and altitude match the latitude, longitude and altitude of the navigation map nodes N respectively by extracting the cuboid areas P that contain the navigation map nodes N. In this way, by using the cuboid areas P, it is possible to extract the lane nodes C that match the navigation map nodes N even if the navigation map nodes N do not completely match the lane nodes C." – see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0129) (The examiner notes that claim 7 is being interpreted as described above in the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The examiner further notes that Chikamori is understood as teaching a method for associating features of a first map with features of a second map, even if there is not an exact match in coordinates, as set forth in further detail above in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102).
Chikamori does not explicitly disclose, but Ishikawa teaches:
wherein in a road structure that does not allow a vehicle to escape from a next specific branch lane to an outside of a main lane due to an influence of a lane change prohibition section defined in the main lane after the vehicle enters the main lane from a specific merging lane ("In the case where it is determined that the distance from the vehicle position to the branch point for guidance has reached the distance at which detection of a space that allows a lane change is started, that is, that the vehicle position has reached the lateral detection start location, i.e. that the vehicle has passed the lateral detection start location (S12: YES), the CPU 41 proceeds to the processing in S13." – see at least Ishikawa: paragraph 0051; and "In S19, the CPU 41 executes determination processing in which it is determined, on the basis of the navigation map information 26, whether or not the start point of the lane change prohibition line in the travel direction of the vehicle 1 is absent within a certain distance, e.g. within 100 m, ahead of the vehicle position. Then, in the case where it is determined that the start point of the lane change prohibition line in the travel direction of the vehicle 1 is not absent within a certain distance, e.g. within 100 m, ahead of the vehicle position (S19: NO), the CPU 41 ends the processing." – see at least Ishikawa: paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chikamori with these above aforementioned teachings from Ishikawa to include a road structure that does not allow a vehicle to escape from a next specific branch lane to an outside of a main lane due to an influence of a lane change prohibition section defined in the main lane after the vehicle enters the main lane from a specific merging lane. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishikawa’s method of route planning based on lane change prohibition rules with Chikamori’s route data conversion device in order to define sections of a map in which a vehicle is prohibited from changing lanes (“Exemplary embodiments provide automated drive assisting devices, methods, and programs for a vehicle that acquire road information including information on a lane change prohibited section of a road on which the vehicle travels” – see at least Ishikawa: paragraph 0006). Doing so would provide the benefit of enabling a route guidance system for a vehicle to determine when it is not possible to change lanes to exit a main road via a branching lane ("In S19, the CPU 41 executes determination processing in which it is determined, on the basis of the navigation map information 26, whether or not the start point of the lane change prohibition line in the travel direction of the vehicle 1 is absent within a certain distance, e.g. within 100 m, ahead of the vehicle position. Then, in the case where it is determined that the start point of the lane change prohibition line in the travel direction of the vehicle 1 is not absent within a certain distance, e.g. within 100 m, ahead of the vehicle position (S19: NO), the CPU 41 ends the processing." – see at least Ishikawa: paragraph 0059).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikamori in view of Gale et al. (US 2020/0158516), hereinafter referred to as Gale. Gale is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of matching maps for vehicle systems.
Regarding claim 8, Chikamori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Chikamori does not explicitly disclose, but Gale teaches:
wherein when the second map does not include the second link which corresponds to the first outflow link that flows out of a first node included in the first node information or the first inflow link that flows into the first node, the association information includes information indicating an absence of the second link or information indicating that the first map and the second map have different topologies ("The comparison includes determining whether the correctness or incorrectness of the map matched result relative to the ground truth data meets any of the EBC classification criteria. For example, the binary classification can evaluate the following criteria to assign a binary value (0 or 1) to the respective EBC category (e.g., MC, MI1, MI2, UC, UI, MX, and UX):... UC: an unmatched correct classification indicating that probe point is unmatched by the map matcher and in the ground truth map-matched data" – see at least Gale: paragraphs 0065-0073) (The examiner notes that an unmatched classification as taught by Gale indicates a road segment which does not have a corresponding matching road link in a digital map ("In one embodiment, the ground truth match result field can be populated with the matched ground truth LinkID or another matched road segment identifier. If there is no match (e.g., does not match any road link in the digital map), the field can be left blank." – see at least Gale: paragraph 0059)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chikamori with these above aforementioned teachings from Gale such that when the second map does not include the second link which corresponds to the first outflow link that flows out of a first node included in the first node information or the first inflow link that flows into the first node, the association information includes information indicating an absence of the second link or information indicating that the first map and the second map have different topologies. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gale’s classification of unmatched map features with Chikamori’s route data conversion device in order to use classifications to define map matching characteristics (“In general, map matchers 109 can be considered as a classifier which can have two outcomes (e.g., binary outcomes)—a probe point can be matched (M) or unmatched (U).” – see at least Gale: paragraph 0062). Doing so would provide the benefit of using the classifications to evaluate a map matching quality (“As previously described, in one embodiment, the MME platform 113 uses binary classification (e.g., extended binary classification) to determine map matching quality for map matchers 109 being evaluated.” – see at least Gale: paragraph 0061).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikamori in view of Wang et al. (US 2014/0278055), hereinafter referred to as Wang. Wang is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of matching maps for vehicle systems.
Regarding claim 10, Chikamori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Chikamori does not explicitly disclose, but Wang teaches:
wherein when a plurality of second links comprised in the at least one second link determined with which the first node information is associated are discontinuous ("The map matching module (105), after having matched the first road of the pair, will find increasing divergence from the first road for the subsequent GPS points that are actually on the second road which has no connection in the digital map for the map matching module (105) to follow. When this divergence exceeds a distance threshold, the map matching module (105) will note the resulting discontinuity and recover by matching the subsequent GPS point to the second road by considering the proximity of the GPS point to the second road, without regard to the lack of connectivity from the first road to the second road in the map. This indicates to the system (100) that there may be a discontinuity in the GPS traces (135) due to a missing intersection." – see at least Wang: paragraph 0055),
the processes comprise complementing a discontinuous portion between the second links using the second map to create the second route information in the second route ("When the map matching module (105) determines that the discontinuity exists, the matched segment module (110) and unmatched segment module (115) send the matched traces (145) and unmatched traces (150) onto a missing intersection module (190) which creates (515) metadata describing the missing intersection... In another example, the geometry of the missing intersection can be estimated by the GPS system (100) or mobile module (200). For example, if the geometries of the first and second roads intersect within a distance threshold (e.g., 20 m) of the map matching discontinuities, then the point of intersection between the two roads is marked as the intersection. If the two roads merely come close but do not actually overlap in the region, then the point of connection for each road is the closest point to the other road in the region." – see at least Wang: paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chikamori with these above aforementioned teachings from Wang such that when a plurality of second links comprised in the at least one second link determined with which the first node information is associated are discontinuous, the processes comprise complementing a discontinuous portion between the second links using the second map to create the second route information in the second route. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wang’s method of recovering discontinuities in a map matching process with Chikamori’s route data conversion device in order to recover after a discontinuity is determined (“When this divergence exceeds a distance threshold, the map matching module (105) will note the resulting discontinuity and recover by matching the subsequent GPS point to the second road by considering the proximity of the GPS point to the second road, without regard to the lack of connectivity from the first road to the second road in the map.” – see at least Wang: paragraph 0055). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the map to be updated to resolve the discontinuities (“The map updating module (120) may then update (520) the database with the missing intersection after a threshold number of discontinuities have been determined to exist.” – see at least Wang: paragraph 0057).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, none of the cited prior art, alone or in combination, is considered to teach “wherein when in a second node group which consists of a plurality of second nodes that are continuous on the second map and which have a geometric correspondence with a first node group consisting of a plurality of first nodes that are continuous on the first map, a first link that branches or merges from the first node group and the second link that branches or merges from the second node group which corresponds to the first link are interchanged in topology between front and rear positions in a traveling direction, the association information includes information for associating the second link with the first inflow link or the first outflow link having a correspondence with the second link”. Although the prior art of record teaches certain aspects of the claimed invention, as set forth above in the sections for claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, the aforementioned limitation regarding “a first link that branches or merges from the first node group and the second link that branches or merges from the second node group which corresponds to the first link are interchanged in topology between front and rear positions in a traveling direction” is not taught by Chikamori, Ishikawa, Gale, Wang, nor any other combination of the cited prior art references.
As best understood by the examiner, the primary reference by Chikamori teaches means for acquiring a route on a high-precision map (i.e., a second map) based on a route on a navigation map (i.e., a first map) (see at least Chikamori: paragraph 0113), as set forth in further detail above in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103. However, there is nothing in Chikamori to teach or suggest associating features of a second map with corresponding features in a first map in a situation where “a first link that branches or merges from the first node group and the second link that branches or merges from the second node group which corresponds to the first link are interchanged in topology between front and rear positions in a traveling direction” as required by the claim. For clarity on interpreting these claim limitations in view of the specification, the examiner referred to at least paragraphs 0066-0077 and Figs. 20-23 of the instant application, which provide examples and illustrations of a first link on a first map and a second link on a second map being interchanged in road topology between front and rear positions in the traveling direction. Neither Chikamori nor any of the additional cited prior art references are considered to teach associating a first link on a first map with a second link on a second map in this particular circumstance. As such, the claimed invention as recited in claim 5 is considered to be distinct from the teachings of the cited prior art.
Likewise, regarding claim 6, none of the cited prior art, alone or in combination, is considered to teach “wherein in a road structure that does not allow a vehicle to escape from a next specific branch lane to an outside of a main lane due to an influence of a lane change prohibition section defined in the main lane after the vehicle enters the main lane from a specific merging lane, the association information indicates the correspondence, based on the first map in which a first link indicating the merging lane and a first link indicating the branch lane have been interchanged between front and rear positions in a traveling direction and based on the second map in which a second link indicating the merging lane and a second link indicating the branch lane are not interchanged between front and rear positions in the traveling direction”.
At best, Ishikawa teaches means of route planning for a circumstance in which a vehicle is unable to change lanes to exit a main road via a branching lane due to lane change prohibition rules (see at least Ishikawa: paragraph 0059), as set forth in further detail above in the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, there is nothing in Ishikawa, nor any of the additional cited prior art, to teach or suggest a situation wherein “the first map in which a first link indicating the merging lane and a first link indicating the branch lane have been interchanged between front and rear positions in a traveling direction” as required by the claim.
As such, dependent claims 5-6 are considered to contain subject matter which is allowable over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
McGavran et al. (US Patent 11,885,625) teaches a data fusion system for generating fused data based on two or more portions of a vehicle map service data to which a client system is subscribed.
Aylwin et al. (US 2022/0397401) teaches methods for route provisioning through map matching for autonomous driving, including comparison of road graphs and routes provided by two different map databases which have misalignments, discontinuities, and invalid routes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK ANTHONY MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, RAMYA P BURGESS can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
