DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
The present application’s status as a continuation of US Application 17/801,259 is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 2 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a Process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Example: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See claim language below:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving observational data for a road system having a plurality of objects, the observational data comprising one or more observations of the road system;
using the observational data to determine a change in an object of the road system;
identifying a map feature of high definition (HD) map data which corresponds to the changed object, the HD map data comprising a plurality of map features representing the plurality of objects of the road system;
generating map change data based on the determined change in the object and the identified map feature, the map change data comprising instructions describing a modification to the identified map feature and processable by an autonomous vehicle to modify the identified feature in existing HD map data stored by the autonomous vehicle based on the described modification; and
providing the map change data to the autonomous vehicle independently from provision of the existing HD map data to the autonomous vehicle.
The Process in claim 2, specifically the limitations bolded above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining a change in an object, identifying a map feature, and generating change instructions. This is equivalent to looking at imagery taken by a vehicle of its surroundings, comparing objects in the imagery, such as a stop sign, to map data of the same area, identifying the absence of a stop sign in the imagery that is included in the map data, and mentally formulating instructions to delete the stop sign.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements, underlined above, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 2 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “receiving observational data…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Further, the limitation “providing the map change data …” is also recited at a high level of generality and is merely transmitting data which is a form of post solutions actions (extra solution activity).
The “computer-implemented” limitation merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the using, identifying, and generating steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 2 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well- understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Mere data communication steps that can be performed entirely on any one or more generic computer/-s have also been previously identified by the courts as an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception): (A) Receiving and/or transmitting data is considered to be well-understood, routine, or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) "Receiving or transmitting data over a network", and (iv) "Storing and retrieving information in memory" and (B) Comparing the received data to other data is considered to be well-understood, routine or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) "Performing repetitive calculations".
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 2 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 2 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, Claims 3-19:
fall within one of the statutory categories (Claims 3-8, 16-19: Process, 9-15: Machine)
directed toward an abstract idea (mental process),
do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and
do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is clear that Claims 3-19 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 20-21 are not rejected under 101 because the final limitation in claim 20 positively recites a vehicle control action based on the updated map data, which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of vehicle control.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba (US 20180151066 A1) in view of Jiang et al. (US 20200191601 A1) and Wheeler et al. (US 20180188045 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Oba teach A computer-implemented (see at least FIG. 6: local cloud server 122) method comprising:
receiving observational data (see at least Claim 18: “from one or more servers, driving environment information corresponding to a driving environment provided by another autonomous vehicle”; [0255]: “the driving environment information provided by the another autonomous vehicle is acquired by one or more sensors”) *Examiner’s interpretation: driving environment information is received by a server from “another autonomous vehicle”* for a road system having a plurality of objects (see at least FIG. 4: lane markers), the observational data comprising one or more observations (see at least [0255]: “the driving environment information provided by the another autonomous vehicle is acquired by one or more sensors”) of the road system;
(see at least TABLE 1: marker information, outside-road landmark information: size, type) representing the plurality of objects (see at least [0045]: TABLE 1: “Basic map data DE1”: “A. on-road marker”, “B. outside-road landmark”) of the road system;
generating map change data (see at least [0076]: “The information administrator side … generates the update information Ps on the basis of the accumulated difference information Qs”) based on the determined change in the object and the identified map feature, the map change data comprising instructions describing a modification to (see at least [0058]: “Table 3 illustrates update information. For example, the update information Ps includes A) information of whether a map landmark has disappeared”) the identified map feature and processable (see at least FIG. 6 step ST3v, [0092]: “the vehicle 11 performs update of the saved map data … using the update information”) by an autonomous vehicle (see at least FIG. 6: vehicle 11; [0092]: “The vehicle 11 performs the autonomous automatic driving”) to modify the identified feature in existing HD map data stored by the autonomous vehicle based on the described modification; and
providing (see at least FIG. 6, [0091]: “The local server 122 sends to the vehicle 11 the update information indicating the difference from the determined map data.”) the map change data to the autonomous vehicle (see at least FIG. 6: vehicle 11; [0092]: “The vehicle 11 performs the autonomous automatic driving”) independently (see at least [0091]: “The local server 122 determines the map data retained by the vehicle 11, on the basis of the version of the map data indicated in the request from the vehicle 11. The local server 122 sends to the vehicle 11 the update information indicating the difference from the determined map data.”) *Examiner’s interpretation: FIG. 6 step ST2c, the server only sends update information. The server does not send map data in this step. The vehicle already has “saved map data”.* from provision of the existing HD map data (see at least [0084]: “The local server 122 supplies the basic map data and the temporary change map data of the managed area, to the vehicle 11 via the communication unit 123.”) to the autonomous vehicle.
However, Oba does not explicitly teach using the observational data to determine a change in an object of the road system;
identifying a map feature of high definition (HD) map data which corresponds to the changed object.
Jiang teach using the observational data to determine a change (see at least FIG. 8, [0091]: “At block 810, the process 800 may determine whether there are changes in one or more traffic control devices in an environment.”; [0089]: “process 800 may be performed by one or more of server computer 104”) in an object of the road system;
identifying a map feature (see at least [0091]: “the process 800 may analyze sensor data to identify traffic control device that are not indicated in the map data”) map data which corresponds to the changed object, the HD map data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oba to incorporate the teachings of Jiang to identify map differences using a server. Doing so would avoid “safety issues for the ADV 101” by “[u]sing outdated map data”, as recognized by Jiang in paragraph [0058].
Wheeler teach high definition (HD) map data (see at least [0026]: “high definition (HD) maps”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oba to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler to use high resolution maps. Doing so would “improve driving paths and workflow”, as recognized by Foster et al. (US 20170339820 A1) in paragraph [0002].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The method of Claim 2.
Oba further teaches wherein the modified HD map data is for controlling one or more operations for maneuvering (see at least FIG. 6 step ST6v: “traveling control by using saved map data”) the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The method of Claim 2.
Oba further teaches wherein the observational data comprises one or more of:
data from sensor-equipped passenger vehicles (see at least [0255]: “the driving environment information provided by the another autonomous vehicle is acquired by one or more sensors at the another autonomous vehicle”);
observation reports provided by humans such as vehicle users; and
data from earthquake information service providers.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The method of Claim 2.
Oba further teaches wherein using the observational data to determine the change in the object comprises one or more of:
determining a change in absolute position;
determining a change in relative position;
determining a change in geometry;
determining a change of type; and
determining a change of existence (see at least [0058]: “Table 3 illustrates update information. For example, the update information Ps includes A) information of whether a map landmark has disappeared”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The method of Claim 2.
Oba further teaches wherein using the observational data to determine the change in the object comprises using the observational data to determine a change that meets a requirement (see at least [0175]: “If the difference is a threshold value or more, the driving supporting unit sets the information indicating the difference as the difference information that is uploaded”) for updating the HD map data.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The method of Claim 2.
Oba further teaches wherein the map change data comprises instructions describing a replacement map feature (see at least [0058]: “the update information Ps includes … F) speed limit change information”) to replace the identified map feature.
Regarding claim 9, Oba teach A computer server (see at least FIG. 6: local cloud server 122) comprising:
(see at least FIG. 6 step ST1c, [0090]: “In step ST1c, the local server 122 saves and updates the map data.”) representing a road system having a plurality of objects (see at least [0045]: TABLE 1: “Basic map data DE1”: “A. on-road marker”, “B. outside-road landmark”), the HD map data comprising a plurality of map features (see at least TABLE 1: marker information, outside-road landmark information: size, type) representing the plurality of objects of the road system; and
receiving observational data (see at least Claim 18: “from one or more servers, driving environment information corresponding to a driving environment provided by another autonomous vehicle”; [0255]: “the driving environment information provided by the another autonomous vehicle is acquired by one or more sensors”) *Examiner’s interpretation: driving environment information is received by a server from “another autonomous vehicle”* comprising one or more observations of the road system;
generating map change data (see at least [0076]: “The information administrator side … generates the update information Ps on the basis of the accumulated difference information Qs”) based on the determined change in the object and the identified map feature, the map change data comprising instructions describing a modification (see at least [0058]: “Table 3 illustrates update information. For example, the update information Ps includes A) information of whether a map landmark has disappeared”) to the identified map feature and processable (see at least FIG. 6 step ST3v, [0092]: “the vehicle 11 performs update of the saved map data … using the update information”) by an autonomous vehicle (see at least FIG. 6: vehicle 11; [0092]: “The vehicle 11 performs the autonomous automatic driving”) to modify the identified feature in existing HD map data stored by the autonomous vehicle based on the described modification; and
providing (see at least FIG. 6, [0091]: “The local server 122 sends to the vehicle 11 the update information indicating the difference from the determined map data.”) the map change data to the autonomous vehicle (see at least FIG. 6: vehicle 11; [0092]: “The vehicle 11 performs the autonomous automatic driving”) independently (see at least [0091]: “The local server 122 determines the map data retained by the vehicle 11, on the basis of the version of the map data indicated in the request from the vehicle 11. The local server 122 sends to the vehicle 11 the update information indicating the difference from the determined map data.”) *Examiner’s interpretation: FIG. 6 step ST2c, the server only sends update information. The server does not send map data in this step. The vehicle already has “saved map data”.* from provision of the existing HD map data (see at least [0084]: “The local server 122 supplies the basic map data and the temporary change map data of the managed area, to the vehicle 11 via the communication unit 123.”) to the autonomous vehicle.
However, Oba does not explicitly teach a memory having stored therein high definition (HD);
one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to execute program code to cause the server to perform operations comprising;
using the observational data to determine a change in an object of the road system;
identifying a map feature of the HD map data which corresponds to the changed object.
Jiang teach a memory (see at least FIG. 9: Memory 1503; [0094]: “system 1500 may represent … any of servers 103-104”; [0019]: “Servers 103-104 may be … map and point of interest (MPOI) severs”) having stored therein map data (see at least [0065]: “The server 106 includes map data 612”); and
one or more processors (see at least [0089]: “Process 800 may be performed by processing logic which may include software, hardware, or a combination thereof. Process 800 may be performed by processing logic that may comprise hardware (e.g., … a processor …), software (e.g., instructions running/executing on a processing device) … or a combination thereof”), the one or more processors configured to execute program code to cause the computer server (see at least [0089]: “process 800 may be performed by one or more of server computer 104”) to perform operations comprising:
using the observational data to determine a change (see at least FIG. 8, [0091]: “At block 810, the process 800 may determine whether there are changes in one or more traffic control devices in an environment.”; [0089]: “process 800 may be performed by one or more of server computer 104”) in an object of the road system;
identifying a map feature (see at least [0091]: “the process 800 may analyze sensor data to identify traffic control device that are not indicated in the map data”) of the HD map data which corresponds to the changed object;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oba to incorporate the teachings of Jiang to identify map differences using a server. Doing so would avoid “safety issues for the ADV 101” by “[u]sing outdated map data”, as recognized by Jiang in paragraph [0058].
Wheeler teach high definition (HD) map data (see at least [0026]: “high definition (HD) maps”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oba to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler to use high resolution maps. Doing so would “improve driving paths and workflow”, as recognized by Foster et al. (US 20170339820 A1) in paragraph [0002].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The computer server of Claim 9.
Oba further teaches wherein the modified HD map data is for controlling one or more operations for maneuvering (see at least FIG. 6 step ST6v: “traveling control by using saved map data”) the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The computer server of Claim 9.
Oba further teaches wherein the observational data comprises one or more of:
data from sensor-equipped passenger vehicles (see at least [0255]: “the driving environment information provided by the another autonomous vehicle is acquired by one or more sensors at the another autonomous vehicle”);
observation reports provided by humans such as vehicle users; and
data from earthquake information service providers.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The computer server of Claim 9.
Oba further teaches wherein using the observational data to determine the change in the object comprises one or more of:
determining a change in absolute position;
determining a change in relative position;
determining a change in geometry;
determining a change of type; and
determining a change of existence (see at least [0058]: “Table 3 illustrates update information. For example, the update information Ps includes A) information of whether a map landmark has disappeared”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The computer server of Claim 9.
Oba further teaches wherein using the observational data to determine the change in the object comprises using the observational data to determine a change that meets a requirement (see at least [0175]: “If the difference is a threshold value or more, the driving supporting unit sets the information indicating the difference as the difference information that is uploaded”) for updating the HD map data.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The computer server of Claim 9.
Oba further teaches wherein the map change data comprises instructions describing a replacement map feature (see at least [0058]: “the update information Ps includes … F) speed limit change information”) to replace the identified map feature.
Regarding claim 16, Oba teach A computer-implemented (see at least [0236]: “computer”) method comprising:
receiving observational data (see at least Claim 18: “from one or more servers, driving environment information corresponding to a driving environment provided by another autonomous vehicle”) *Examiner’s interpretation: driving environment information is received by a server from “another autonomous vehicle”*) for a road system having a plurality of objects (FIG. 4: lane markers), the observational data comprising one or more observations ([0255]: “the driving environment information provided by the another autonomous vehicle is acquired by one or more sensors”) of the road system;
(see at least TABLE 1: marker information, outside-road landmark information: size, type) representing the plurality of objects (see at least [0045]: TABLE 1: “Basic map data DE1”: “A. on-road marker”, “B. outside-road landmark”) of the road system;
generating map change data (see at least [0076]: “The information administrator side … generates the update information Ps on the basis of the accumulated difference information Qs”) based on the determined change in the object and the identified map feature, the map change data comprising instructions describing a modification to (see at least [0058]: “Table 3 illustrates update information. For example, the update information Ps includes A) information of whether a map landmark has disappeared”) the identified map feature;
providing (see at least FIG. 6, [0091]: “The local server 122 sends to the vehicle 11 the update information indicating the difference from the determined map data.”) the map change data to an autonomous vehicle (see at least FIG. 6: vehicle 11; [0092]: “The vehicle 11 performs the autonomous automatic driving”) independently (see at least [0091]: “The local server 122 determines the map data retained by the vehicle 11, on the basis of the version of the map data indicated in the request from the vehicle 11. The local server 122 sends to the vehicle 11 the update information indicating the difference from the determined map data.”) *Examiner’s interpretation: FIG. 6 step ST2c, the server only sends update information. The server does not send map data in this step. The vehicle already has “saved map data”.* from provision of the existing HD map data (see at least [0084]: “The local server 122 supplies the basic map data and the temporary change map data of the managed area, to the vehicle 11 via the communication unit 123.”) to the autonomous vehicle;
receiving the map change data (see at least FIG. 6 step ST2c, [0091]: “The local server 122 sends to the vehicle 11 the update information”) at the autonomous vehicle;
processing the map change data to modify (see at least FIG. 6 step ST3v, [0092]: “the vehicle 11 performs update of the saved map data … using the update information”) the identified map feature within the existing HD map data according to the described modification to generate updated HD map data; and
using the updated HD map data for controlling one or more operations for maneuvering the autonomous vehicle (see at least FIG. 6 step ST6v: “traveling control by using saved map data”).
However, Oba does not explicitly teach
Jiang teach using the observational data to determine a change (see at least FIG. 8, [0091]: “At block 810, the process 800 may determine whether there are changes in one or more traffic control devices in an environment.”; [0089]: “process 800 may be performed by one or more of server computer 104”) in an object of the road system;
identifying a map feature (see at least [0091]: “the process 800 may analyze sensor data to identify traffic control device that are not indicated in the map data”) of map data which corresponds to the changed object, the HD map data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oba to incorporate the teachings of Jiang to identify map differences using a server. Doing so would avoid “safety issues for the ADV 101” by “[u]sing outdated map data”, as recognized by Jiang in paragraph [0058].
Wheeler teach high definition (HD) map data (see at least [0026]: “high definition (HD) maps”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oba to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler to use high resolution maps. Doing so would “improve driving paths and workflow”, as recognized by Foster et al. (US 20170339820 A1) in paragraph [0002].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The method of Claim 16.
Oba further teaches sending a request (see at least FIG. 6 step ST2v, [0088]: “the vehicle 11 requests the information indicating the traveling environment”) for map change data from the autonomous vehicle, wherein the map change data is received at the autonomous vehicle in response to (see at least FIG. 3: steps ST2v [Wingdings font/0xE0] ST2c: “replying process to request”) the request.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The method of Claim 17.
Oba further teaches wherein the request is a request for map change data that corresponds to a subarea (see at least [0088]: “the vehicle 11 requests the information indicating the traveling environment on the selected traveling route.”) of a geographical area described by the existing HD map data.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The method of Claim 17.
Oba further teaches wherein the request is a request (see at least FIG. 6 step ST2v, [0088]: “the vehicle 11 requests the information indicating the traveling environment”; [0091]: “The local server 122 sends to the vehicle 11 the update information indicating the difference from the determined map data.”) for map change data relating to the identified map feature (see at least [0045]: “The on-road marker information includes size information …. The outside-road landmark information includes size information”; [0058]: “Table 3 illustrates update information. For example, the update information Ps includes A) information of whether a map landmark has disappeared”).
Regarding claim 20, Oba teach A system (FIG. 6: vehicle 11 + information management center 12) comprising:
a computer server (FIG. 6: local cloud server 122) comprising:
a first memory having stored therein high definition (HD) map data (see at least FIG. 6 step ST1c, [0090]: “In step ST1c, the local server 122 saves and updates the map data.”) representing a road system having a plurality of objects (see at least [0045]: TABLE 1: “Basic map data DE1”: “A. on-road marker”, “B. outside-road landmark”), the HD map data comprising a plurality of map features (see at least TABLE 1: marker information, outside-road landmark information: size, type) representing the plurality of objects of the road system; and
one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to execute program code to cause the computer server to perform operations comprising:
receiving observational data (see at least Claim 18: “from one or more servers, driving environment information corresponding to a driving environment provided by another autonomous vehicle”; [0255]: “the driving environment information provided by the another autonomous vehicle is acquired by one or more sensors”) *Examiner’s interpretation: driving environment information is received by a server from “another autonomous vehicle”* comprising one or more observations of the road system;
using the observational data to determine a change in an object of the road system;
identifying a map feature of the HD map data which corresponds to the changed object;
generating map change data (see at least [0076]: “The information administrator side … generates the update information Ps on the basis of the accumulated difference information Qs”) based on the determined change in the object and the identified map feature, the map change data comprising instructions describing a modification (see at least [0058]: “Table 3 illustrates update information. For example, the update information Ps includes A) information of whether a map landmark has disappeared”) to the identified map feature; and
transmitting (see at least FIG. 6, [0091]: “The local server 122 sends to the vehicle 11 the update information indicating the difference from the determined map data.”) the map change data to an autonomous vehicle (see at least FIG. 6: vehicle 11; [0092]: “The vehicle 11 performs the autonomous automatic driving”) independently (see at least [0091]: “The local server 122 determines the map data retained by the vehicle 11, on the basis of the version of the map data indicated in the request from the vehicle 11. The local server 122 sends to the vehicle 11 the update information indicating the difference from the determined map data.”) *Examiner’s interpretation: FIG. 6 step ST2c, the server only sends update information. The server does not send map data in this step. The vehicle already has “saved map data”.* from provision of HD map data (see at least [0084]: “The local server 122 supplies the basic map data and the temporary change map data of the managed area, to the vehicle 11 via the communication unit 123.”) to the autonomous vehicle; and
a client computer system (see at least Fig. 7: vehicle control device 20) in an autonomous vehicle, the client computer system comprising:
a second memory (see at least FIG. 7: information storage unit 46) having stored therein second HD map data (see at least [0127]: “The information storage unit 46 stores the traveling environment information acquired from the information management center 12, for example the basic map data”) representing the road system; and
a second one or more processors (see at least FIG. 7, [0131]: “The driving supporting unit 60 may be configured with a central processing unit (CPU)”), the second one or more processors configured to execute program code to cause the client computer system to perform operations (see at least [0131]: “the CPU of the driving supporting unit 60 executes various types of controls by using a driving control program”) comprising:
receiving (see at least FIG. 6 step ST2c, [0091]: “The local server 122 sends to the vehicle 11 the update information”) the map change data;
processing the map change data to modify (see at least FIG. 6 step ST3v, [0092]: “the vehicle 11 performs update of the saved map data … using the update information”) the identified map feature within the second HD map data according to the described modification to generate updated HD map data; and
controlling one or more operations for maneuvering the autonomous vehicle using the updated HD map data (see at least FIG. 6 step ST6v: “traveling control by using saved map data”).
However, Oba does not explicitly teach a first memory having stored therein high definition (HD);
one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to execute program code to cause the computer server to perform operations comprising;
using the observational data to determine a change in an object of the road system;
identifying a map feature of the HD map data which corresponds to the changed object.
Jiang teach a first memory (see at least FIG. 9: Memory 1503; [0094]: “system 1500 may represent … any of servers 103-104”; [0019]: “Servers 103-104 may be … map and point of interest (MPOI) severs”) having stored therein map data (see at least [0065]: “The server 106 includes map data 612”); and
one or more processors (see at least [0089]: “Process 800 may be performed by processing logic which may include software, hardware, or a combination thereof. Process 800 may be performed by processing logic that may comprise hardware (e.g., … a processor …), software (e.g., instructions running/executing on a processing device) … or a combination thereof”), the one or more processors configured to execute program code to cause the computer server (see at least [0089]: “process 800 may be performed by one or more of server computer 104”) to perform operations comprising;
using the observational data to determine a change (see at least FIG. 8, [0091]: “At block 810, the process 800 may determine whether there are changes in one or more traffic control devices in an environment.”; [0089]: “process 800 may be performed by one or more of server computer 104”) in an object of the road system;
identifying a map feature (see at least [0091]: “the process 800 may analyze sensor data to identify traffic control device that are not indicated in the map data”) of the HD map data which corresponds to the changed object
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oba to incorporate the teachings of Jiang to identify map differences using a server. Doing so would avoid “safety issues for the ADV 101” by “[u]sing outdated map data”, as recognized by Jiang in paragraph [0058].
Wheeler teach high definition (HD) map data (see at least [0026]: “high definition (HD) maps”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oba to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler to use high resolution maps. Doing so would “improve driving paths and workflow”, as recognized by Foster et al. (US 20170339820 A1) in paragraph [0002].
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The system of Claim 20.
Oba further teaches the second one or more processors configured to execute program code to cause the client computer system to perform operations comprising: sending a request (see at least FIG. 6 step ST2v, [0088]: “the vehicle 11 requests the information indicating the traveling environment”) for map change data from the autonomous vehicle to the computer server, wherein the map change data is received in response to (see at least FIG. 3: steps ST2v [Wingdings font/0xE0] ST2c: “replying process to request”) the request.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba (US 20180151066 A1) in view of Jiang et al. (US 20200191601 A1), Wheeler et al. (US 20180188045 A1), Hong (US 20200300640 A1), and David et al. (US 20210133060 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The method of Claim 2.
However, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler does not explicitly teach wherein a size of the map change data is at least one order of magnitude smaller than a size of the HD map data.
Hong teaches wherein a size of the map change data is at least (see at least [0033]: “A digital navigation map usually has a large data volume”; [0058]: “An incremental update packet has a small data volume”) a size of the HD map data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oba to incorporate the teachings of Hong to transfer smaller update files. Doing so would enable faster data transfer, as recognized by Hong in paragraph [0058].
David teaches change data is at least one order of magnitude (see at least [0062]: “the amount of data of the second portion of data (e.g., second portion of data 504) may be e.g., an order of magnitude less than the first portion of data (e.g., first portion of data 402) as the second portion of data (e.g., second portion of data 504) may only include updates”) smaller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oba to incorporate the teachings of David to use change data an order of magnitude smaller. Doing so would “provide high availability to a user”, as recognized by David in paragraph [0042].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler teach The computer server of Claim 9.
However, the combination of Oba, Jiang, and Wheeler does not explicitly teach wherein a size of the map change data is at least one order of magnitude smaller than a size of the HD map data.
Hong teaches wherein a size of the map change data is at least (see at least [0033]: “A digital navigation map usually has a large data volume”; [0058]: “An incremental update packet has a small data volume”) a size of the HD map data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oba to incorporate the teachings of Hong to transfer smaller update files. Doing so would enable faster data transfer, as recognized by Hong in paragraph [0058].
David teaches change data is at least one order of magnitude (see at least [0062]: “the amount of data of the second portion of data (e.g., second portion of data 504) may be e.g., an order of magnitude less than the first portion of data (e.g., first portion of data 402) as the second portion of data (e.g., second portion of data 504) may only include updates”) smaller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oba to incorporate the teachings of David to use change data an order of magnitude smaller. Doing so would “provide high availability to a user”, as recognized by David in paragraph [0042].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art previously presented:
Beauford (US 20180020324 A1) teaches a system where a device requests map updates to detect traffic changes (see paragraph [0032]).
Bhatia et al. (US 20170350713 A1) teaches “a system that issues an update-request to update the digital-map when the location of a traffic-signal has changed” (see paragraph [0001]) or when the traffic light is not operational (see paragraph [0014]).
Obara et al. (US 20130024548 A1) teaches a system that updates map data of an area more frequently traveled by a user (see paragraph [0012]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/GEORGE A ALCORN III/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights