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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Reference to Claim 1
In line 3 recites “an electronic map” however since in line 2 already recites “an electronic map” it is not clear if the maps are different from each other or they are the same map but is an inadvertent typo. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as being the same electronic map. The examiner suggests amending “an electronic map” in line 3 to “the electronic map” in order to overcome the rejection above.
In line 7 recites “performing a search of the road topology graph for a predetermined graph structure” however since the claim do not further defining as to what the “predetermined graph structure” or how the “predetermined graph structure” is chosen therefore it is not clear as to the scope of the claim recitations are required. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as any graph structure that is chosen or selected. The examiner suggest amending the claim to further define the “predetermined graph structure”.
In Reference to Claim 9
In line 4 recites “the portion of the road structure” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In lines 4-5 recites “wherein the portion of the road structure comprises the one or more junctions and the annotation data comprises a junction group associated with the one or more junctions” however it is not clear as to what is required by the claim. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpret as merely requires annotation data of the road structures.
In Reference to Claim 19
In lines 1-3 recites “A computer system comprising one or more computers programmed or otherwise configured to implement a method of generating road annotation data for annotating an electronic map, the method comprising:” however it is not clear if the preamble is describing a method claim or a structure claim since the body of the claims are directed to method steps with action words ending in “ing” which are normally recited in method claims however the preamble is directed to “A computer system…” therefore it is not clear if the claim is directed to method or product claim. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as directed to a product claim. The examiner suggest amending the claim to clear indicate that the computer is configured to perform the functions with out the “ing” in order to overcome the rejection above.
In line 4 recites “an electronic map” however since in line 2 already recites “an electronic map” it is not clear if the maps are different from each other or they are the same map but is an inadvertent typo. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as being the same electronic map. The examiner suggests amending “an electronic map” in line 3 to “the electronic map” in order to overcome the rejection above.
In line 8 recites “performing a search of the road topology graph for a predetermined graph structure” however since the claim do not further defining as to what the “predetermined graph structure” or how the “predetermined graph structure” is chosen therefore it is not clear as to the scope of the claim recitations are required. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as any graph structure that is chosen or selected. The examiner suggest amending the claim to further define the “predetermined graph structure”.
In Reference to Claim 20
In lines 1-3, “A computer program product configured to program a computer system so as to carry out a method of generating road annotation data for annotating an electronic map, the method comprising:” however it is not clear if the preamble is describing a method claim or a structure claim since the body of the claims are directed to method steps with action words ending in “ing” which are normally recited in method claims however the preamble is directed to “A computer program product…” without reciting any positive structures therefore it is not clear if the claim is directed to method, product claim, or program per se. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as directed to a program per se.
In line 4 recites “an electronic map” however since in line 2 already recites “an electronic map” it is not clear if the maps are different from each other or they are the same map but is an inadvertent typo. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as being the same electronic map. The examiner suggests amending “an electronic map” in line 3 to “the electronic map” in order to overcome the rejection above.
In line 8 recites “performing a search of the road topology graph for a predetermined graph structure” however since the claim do not further defining as to what the “predetermined graph structure” or how the “predetermined graph structure” is chosen therefore it is not clear as to the scope of the claim recitations are required. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as any graph structure that is chosen or selected. The examiner suggest amending the claim to further define the “predetermined graph structure”.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to any of the statutory categories such as computer program per se since the claim as claimed is a product without any structural recitations (See MPEP 2106.03 I and 112(b) rejection above).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
[101 Analysis Step 1]
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of mater.
The claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method of generating road annotation data for annotating an electronic map (i.e. process) and claim 19 is directed to a computer system comprising: one or more computers (i.e. machine). Thus, claims 1 and 19 are one of four the statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
[101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong I]
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(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method of generating road annotation data for annotating an electronic map, the method comprising:
accessing from persistent storage an electronic map defining a road network;
generating a road topology graph encoding a topology of the road network, the road topology graph comprising nodes representing road structure elements and edges representing links between road structure elements;
performing a search of the road topology graph for a predetermined graph structure;
responsive to identifying a subgraph of the road topology graph exhibiting the predetermined graph structure, generating annotation data for marking in the electronic map a portion of the road network corresponding to the subgraph; and
generating in persistent storage an augmented map comprising map data defining the portion of the road network and the annotation data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretations, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generating…”, “performing…”, “generating…” and “generating…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at and using the data collected to formulating a judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
[101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong II]
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”):
A computer-implemented method of generating road annotation data for annotating an electronic map, the method comprising:
accessing from persistent storage an electronic map defining a road network;
generating a road topology graph encoding a topology of the road network, the road topology graph comprising nodes representing road structure elements and edges representing links between road structure elements;
performing a search of the road topology graph for a predetermined graph structure;
responsive to identifying a subgraph of the road topology graph exhibiting the predetermined graph structure, generating annotation data for marking in the electronic map a portion of the road network corresponding to the subgraph; and
generating in persistent storage an augmented map comprising map data defining the portion of the road network and the annotation data.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract into a practical applications.
Regarding the additional limitations of “accessing from persistent storage an electronic map defining a road network”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processing circuitry of a computer system) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps can be performed via sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering map data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “computer” and “electronic map” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function; an electronic map) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and normal electronic map.
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 filed, 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 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.
[101 Analysis Step 2B]
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims 1 and 19 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system and the electronic maps, for generating…, performing…, generating… and generating amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in generic mapping system. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “accessing from persistent storage an electronic map defining a road network” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-18 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: abstract idea. Each of the further limitations expound upon the abstract ideas and do not recite additional elements integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 2-18 and 20 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11-16, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pub No. US 2023/0194302 A1 to Li et. al. (Li).
In Reference to Claim 1
A computer-implemented method of generating road annotation data for annotating an electronic map, the method comprising:
accessing from persistent storage an electronic map defining a road network (see at least Li Figs.1-2 and paragraphs [0027] and [0033] “In an example, the server 105 may process a traffic event text to update the map data. The server 105 may send the updated map data to the clients 101, 102, 103, so that the clients 101, 102, 103 may locate and navigate based on the updated map data. Alternatively, the clients 101, 102, 103 may send a navigation and locating request to the server 105. The server 105 conducts navigation and locating based on the updated map data, obtains the navigation and locating results, and sends the navigation and locating results to the clients 101, 102, 103”, “In operation S220, candidate road data in the map data is determined based on the location data”);
generating a road topology graph encoding a topology of the road network, the road topology graph comprising nodes representing road structure elements and edges representing links between road structure elements (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5 and paragraphs [0059] “As shown in FIG. 5, a topological relationship graph 520 is constructed based on a connection relationship 510 between a plurality of road data. The plurality of road data include the candidate road data, and each of the plurality of road data is used as a node. A hollow circle shown in FIG. 5 represents a node”);
performing a search of the road topology graph for a predetermined graph structure (target road) (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs [0060] and [0072] “In an example, the geographic object may be searched by using Depth-First-Search (DFS). For example, it may be possible to determine, in the topological relationship graph 520, an associated node in turn with a node for the candidate road data as a starting point, and the geographic object is determined from the map data based on the node” and “According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the first determination unit is further used to: determine, in a topological relationship graph, an associated node in turn with a node for the candidate road data as a starting point, and determine the geographic object from the map data based on the node, where the topological relationship graph is constructed based on a connection relationship between a plurality of road data, and wherein the plurality of road data comprise the candidate road data, and each of the plurality of road data is used as one node”);
responsive to identifying a subgraph of the road topology graph exhibiting the predetermined graph structure, generating annotation data for marking in the electronic map a portion of the road network corresponding to the subgraph; and generating in persistent storage an augmented map comprising map data defining the portion of the road network and the annotation data (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs [0068] and [0075] “The updating module 640 may be used to update the target road data based on the traffic event text. According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the updating module 640 may, for example, perform the operation S240 described above with reference to FIG. 2, which will not be repeated here” and “According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the traffic event text includes a road condition information; and the updating module 640 is further used to update a road condition of a target road corresponding to the target road data based on the road condition information”).
In Reference to Claim 9
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein generating the annotation data comprises identifying one or more junctions containing a plurality of road structure elements represented by a plurality of nodes of the subgraph, wherein the portion of the road structure comprises the one or more junctions and the annotation data comprises a junction group associated with the one or more junctions (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs [0057], [0074] “According to embodiments of the present disclosure, after determining the candidate road data, the geographic object may be searched based on the direction for the candidate road data, and the target direction data for the candidate road data is determined based on the attribute data of the searched geographic object. Then, based on the target direction data and the reference direction data in the traffic event text, the target road data on which an event occurs is determined, thereby achieving locating a place where the event occurs based on the traffic event text, and improving the accuracy of updating map data based on the traffic event text” and “According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the apparatus 600 may further include a tokenization module and a third determination module. The tokenization module is used to perform a tokenization on the traffic event text to obtain a road identification and a road stake number; and the third determination module is used to determine the location data based on the road identification and the road stake number”).
In Reference to Claim 11
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the nodes of the road topology graph represent roads (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 59-62).
In Reference to Claim 12
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the road topology graph is generated in processor memory (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 59-62, 86).
In Reference to Claim 13
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), further comprising: rendering the road network on a graphical user interface (GUI), with a visual indicator marking the portion of the road network corresponding to the identified subgraph based on the annotation data (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 59-62, 86-88).
In Reference to Claim 14
The computer-implemented method of claim 13 (see rejection to claim 13 above), wherein the step of performing the search of the road topology graph is taken in response to receiving a user selection of a selectable element on the graphical user interface (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 59-62, 86-88).
In Reference to Claim 15
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein generating the augmented map comprises augmenting the electronic map with the annotation data by generating or modifying in the electronic map at least one of a syntax element or an attribute pertaining to the portion of the road network corresponding to the identified subgraph (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 59-62).
In Reference to Claim 16
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the annotation data comprises a wrapper element assigned to the portion of the road network corresponding to the identified subgraph (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 59-70).
In Reference to Claim 19
A computer system comprising one or more computers programmed or otherwise configured to implement a method of generating road annotation data for annotating an electronic map, the method comprising:
accessing from persistent storage an electronic map defining a road network (see at least Li Figs.1-2 and paragraphs [0027] and [0033] “In an example, the server 105 may process a traffic event text to update the map data. The server 105 may send the updated map data to the clients 101, 102, 103, so that the clients 101, 102, 103 may locate and navigate based on the updated map data. Alternatively, the clients 101, 102, 103 may send a navigation and locating request to the server 105. The server 105 conducts navigation and locating based on the updated map data, obtains the navigation and locating results, and sends the navigation and locating results to the clients 101, 102, 103”, “In operation S220, candidate road data in the map data is determined based on the location data”);
generating a road topology graph encoding a topology of the road network, the road topology graph comprising nodes representing road structure elements and edges representing links between road structure elements (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5 and paragraphs [0059] “As shown in FIG. 5, a topological relationship graph 520 is constructed based on a connection relationship 510 between a plurality of road data. The plurality of road data include the candidate road data, and each of the plurality of road data is used as a node. A hollow circle shown in FIG. 5 represents a node”);
performing a search of the road topology graph for a predetermined graph structure (target road) (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs [0060] and [0072] “In an example, the geographic object may be searched by using Depth-First-Search (DFS). For example, it may be possible to determine, in the topological relationship graph 520, an associated node in turn with a node for the candidate road data as a starting point, and the geographic object is determined from the map data based on the node” and “According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the first determination unit is further used to: determine, in a topological relationship graph, an associated node in turn with a node for the candidate road data as a starting point, and determine the geographic object from the map data based on the node, where the topological relationship graph is constructed based on a connection relationship between a plurality of road data, and wherein the plurality of road data comprise the candidate road data, and each of the plurality of road data is used as one node”);
responsive to identifying a subgraph of the road topology graph exhibiting the predetermined graph structure, generating annotation data for marking in the electronic map a portion of the road network corresponding to the subgraph; and generating in persistent storage an augmented map comprising map data defining the portion of the road network and the annotation data (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs [0068] and [0075] “The updating module 640 may be used to update the target road data based on the traffic event text. According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the updating module 640 may, for example, perform the operation S240 described above with reference to FIG. 2, which will not be repeated here” and “According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the traffic event text includes a road condition information; and the updating module 640 is further used to update a road condition of a target road corresponding to the target road data based on the road condition information”).
In Reference to Claim 21
A computer program product configured to program a computer system so as to carry out a method of generating road annotation data for annotating an electronic map, the method comprising:
accessing from persistent storage an electronic map defining a road network (see at least Li Figs.1-2 and paragraphs [0027] and [0033] “In an example, the server 105 may process a traffic event text to update the map data. The server 105 may send the updated map data to the clients 101, 102, 103, so that the clients 101, 102, 103 may locate and navigate based on the updated map data. Alternatively, the clients 101, 102, 103 may send a navigation and locating request to the server 105. The server 105 conducts navigation and locating based on the updated map data, obtains the navigation and locating results, and sends the navigation and locating results to the clients 101, 102, 103”, “In operation S220, candidate road data in the map data is determined based on the location data”);
generating a road topology graph encoding a topology of the road network, the road topology graph comprising nodes representing road structure elements and edges representing links between road structure elements (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5 and paragraphs [0059] “As shown in FIG. 5, a topological relationship graph 520 is constructed based on a connection relationship 510 between a plurality of road data. The plurality of road data include the candidate road data, and each of the plurality of road data is used as a node. A hollow circle shown in FIG. 5 represents a node”);
performing a search of the road topology graph for a predetermined graph structure (target road) (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs [0060] and [0072] “In an example, the geographic object may be searched by using Depth-First-Search (DFS). For example, it may be possible to determine, in the topological relationship graph 520, an associated node in turn with a node for the candidate road data as a starting point, and the geographic object is determined from the map data based on the node” and “According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the first determination unit is further used to: determine, in a topological relationship graph, an associated node in turn with a node for the candidate road data as a starting point, and determine the geographic object from the map data based on the node, where the topological relationship graph is constructed based on a connection relationship between a plurality of road data, and wherein the plurality of road data comprise the candidate road data, and each of the plurality of road data is used as one node”);
responsive to identifying a subgraph of the road topology graph exhibiting the predetermined graph structure, generating annotation data for marking in the electronic map a portion of the road network corresponding to the subgraph; and generating in persistent storage an augmented map comprising map data defining the portion of the road network and the annotation data (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs [0068] and [0075] “The updating module 640 may be used to update the target road data based on the traffic event text. According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the updating module 640 may, for example, perform the operation S240 described above with reference to FIG. 2, which will not be repeated here” and “According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the traffic event text includes a road condition information; and the updating module 640 is further used to update a road condition of a target road corresponding to the target road data based on the road condition information”).
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 (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 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(s) 2-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pub No. US 2025/0251245 A1 to Regula et. al. (Regula).
In Reference to Claim 2
Li teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the predetermined graph structure is a closed loop structure, the subgraph comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of drivable links therebetween identified as forming a closed loop within the road topology graph (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 59-62).
Li teaches that the nodes used to determine the objects within the road topology graph. However Li is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the predetermined graph structure is a closed loop structure and the subgraph comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of drivable links therebetween identified as forming a closed loop. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the predetermined graph structure is a closed loop structure and the subgraph comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of drivable links therebetween identified as forming a closed loop. For example, Regula teaches the predetermined graph structure is a closed loop structure and the subgraph comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of drivable links therebetween identified as forming a closed loop. Regula further teaches that performing such function provides increase the accuracy of ego-localization and also the accuracy of localizing other entities of the traffic ecosystem (see at least Regula Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 4-5, 16 and 85-89). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Li to include that the predetermined graph structure is a closed loop structure, the subgraph comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of drivable links therebetween identified as forming a closed loop within the road topology graph as taught by Regula in order to increase the accuracy of ego-localization and also the accuracy of localizing other entities of the traffic ecosystem.
In Reference to Claim 3
The computer-implemented method of claim 2 (see rejection to claim 2 above), wherein the predetermined graph structure is a one-way closed loop structure, the closed loop identified as being drivable in one direction only, wherein the annotation data identifies the portion of the road network as a roundabout (see at least Regula Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 4-5, 16 and 85-89).
In Reference to Claim 18
The method of claim 3 (see rejection to claim 3 above), wherein each road structure element of the road topology graph comprises:
a road having a start and an end, and a direction indicator indicating a either direction towards the start of the road or towards the end of the road; wherein each link is between a source road structure element and a destination road structure element, and indicates that traffic travelling on the road of the source road structure element in a direction indicated by the source road structure element could proceed onward to the road of the destination road structure element in a direction indicated by the destination road structure element (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 59-70) (see at least Regula Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 4-5, 16 and 85-89).
Claim(s) 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Regula and further in view of Pub No. US 2013/0238240 A1 to Tamai et. al. (Tamai)
In Reference to Claim 4
Li in view of Regula teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The computer-implemented method of claim 3 (see rejection to claim 3 above), wherein performing the search of the road topology graph for the predetermined graph structure comprises: performing a first search in the road topology graph for closed loops which do not exceed a first loop length threshold, and performing a second search for closed loops which do not exceed a second loop length threshold greater than the first loop length threshold, excluding any road structure element belonging to any loop found in the first search (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 59-62) (see at least Regula Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 4-5, 16 and 85-89).
Li in view of Regula do not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to performing a first search in the road topology graph for closed loops which do not exceed a first loop length threshold, and performing a second search for closed loops which do not exceed a second loop length threshold greater than the first loop length threshold, excluding any road structure element belonging to any loop found in the first search. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform multiple searches with different thresholds and excludes the ones already searched. For example, Tamai teaches to perform multiple searches with different thresholds and excludes the ones already searched. Further Tamai teaches that performing such steps provide reduction of processing time during search (see at least Tamai Figs. 1-13 and paragraphs 5, 89-94 and 97-115). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Li in view of Regula with the steps of performing multiple searches with different thresholds and excludes the ones already searched as taught by Tamai in order to reduce the processing time during search.
In Reference to Claim 5
The computer-implemented method of claim 4 (see rejection to claim 4 above), wherein performing the search of the road topology graph comprises performing a third search for closed loops which do not exceed a third loop length threshold greater than the second loop length threshold, excluding any road structure element belonging to any loop found in the first or second search (see at least Tamai Figs. 1-13 and paragraphs 5, 89-94 and 97-115).
In Reference to Claim 6
The computer-implemented method of claim 4 (see rejection to claim 4 above), wherein each node comprises a distance cost, wherein a total length of a sequence of nodes is determined by summing their distance costs (see at least Tamai Figs. 1-13 and paragraphs 5, 89-94 and 97-115).
In Reference to Claim 7
The computer-implemented method of claim 4 (see rejection to claim 4 above), wherein any nodes representing road structure elements that are determined to be not one-way in or prior to the first search are excluded from the second search (see at least Tamai Figs. 1-13 and paragraphs 5, 89-94 and 97-115).
In Reference to Claim 8
The computer-implemented method of claim 4 (see rejection to claim 4 above), wherein the first and second searches are restricted to loops commencing at a road structure element belonging to a junction (see at least Tamai Figs. 1-13 and paragraphs 5, 89-94 and 97-115).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
In Reference to Claim 10
The computer-implemented method of claim 9 (see rejection to claim 9 above), wherein the one or more junctions contain at least one additional road structure element that is not represented by any node of the subgraph (Li does teaches having multiple node such as a second node which is can be not represented by any node of the subgraph based on the search direction therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Li can have the one or more junctions contain at least one additional road structure element that is not represented by any node of the subgraph based on the search direction) (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 59-62).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pub No. WO 2021/037766 A1 to Redford et. al. (Redford).
In Reference to Claim 20
Li teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The computer system of claim 19, wherein the one or more computers programmed or otherwise configured to implement:
a simulator configured to run a test scenario on the road network, with a dynamic agent controlled by a robotic planner under testing; and
a test oracle configured to select at least one performance evaluation rule based on the annotation data, evaluate performance of the dynamic agent based on the at least one performance evaluation rule, and output a test result for the robotic planner under testing (see at least Li Figs.1-2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 59-62).
Li does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to having a simulator configured to run a test scenario on the road network, with a dynamic agent controlled by a robotic planner under testing; and a test oracle configured to select at least one performance evaluation rule based on the annotation data, evaluate performance of the dynamic agent based on the at least one performance evaluation rule, and output a test result for the robotic planner under testing. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a simulator configured to run a test scenario on the road network, with a dynamic agent controlled by a robotic planner under testing; and a test oracle configured to select at least one performance evaluation rule based on the annotation data, evaluate performance of the dynamic agent based on the at least one performance evaluation rule, and output a test result for the robotic planner under testing. For example, Redford teaches to have a simulator configured to run a test scenario on the road network, with a dynamic agent controlled by a robotic planner under testing; and a test oracle configured to select at least one performance evaluation rule based on the annotation data, evaluate performance of the dynamic agent based on the at least one performance evaluation rule, and output a test result for the robotic planner under testing. Redford further teaches that having such structures provide improve safety and reduces cost (see at least Redford Figs. 1-18 and lines 30-45, 86-95, 105-129, 329-335, 654-662, 710-735). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Li to have a simulator configured to run a test scenario on the road network, with a dynamic agent controlled by a robotic planner under testing; and a test oracle configured to select at least one performance evaluation rule based on the annotation data, evaluate performance of the dynamic agent based on the at least one performance evaluation rule, and output a test result for the robotic planner under testing as taught by Redford in order to provide improve safety and reduces cost.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2022/0163347 A1 to Anastassov (Anastassov) teaches map creating based on determine density of road link nodes detected from the probe data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights