DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action for application Serial No. 19/182,373 filed on 04/17/2025. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "A road surface generation method, performed by a computer device, the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of road links of an electronic map;
expanding the plurality of road links for obtaining a plurality of road surfaces having widths;
determining, when an overlap of road surfaces exists among the plurality of road surfaces, a first group of width adjustment ratios for adjusting the widths of the plurality of road surfaces;
adjusting a width adjustment ratio of at least one road surface among the plurality of road surfaces in the first group of width adjustment ratios for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios in the second group of width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces among the plurality of road surfaces is not greater than a ratio threshold; and
adjusting the widths of the plurality of road surfaces based on the second group of width adjustment ratios."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
expanding the plurality of road links for obtaining a plurality of road surfaces having widths;
determining, when an overlap of road surfaces exists among the plurality of road surfaces, a first group of width adjustment ratios for adjusting the widths of the plurality of road surfaces;
adjusting a width adjustment ratio of at least one road surface among the plurality of road surfaces in the first group of width adjustment ratios for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios in the second group of width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces among the plurality of road surfaces is not greater than a ratio threshold
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Idiomatic Language: The language of the claim (e.g. “determining, when an overlap of road surfaces exists among the plurality of road surfaces, a first group of width adjustment ratios for adjusting the widths of the plurality of road surfaces; adjusting a width adjustment ratio of at least one road surface among the plurality of road surfaces in the first group of width adjustment ratios for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios in the second group of width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces among the plurality of road surfaces is not greater than a ratio threshold; and adjusting the widths of the plurality of road surfaces based on the second group of width adjustment ratios") is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. This language appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example: The expressions “expanding the plurality of road links”, “a width adjustment ratio of at least one road surface among the plurality of road surfaces in the first group of width adjustment ratios”, and “adjusting the widths of the plurality of road surfaces based on the second group of width adjustment ratios” as used in the claim is vague and indefinite and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical features to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition and scope of the subject-matter of said claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear what is meant by the term “expanding.” For example, it is unclear whether this language is intended to convey that the number of road links increases, whether the widths of road surfaces corresponding to the road links are increased, or whether the road links or road surfaces are increased in any other way (e.g. length, traffic, speed, ranking, etc.). Moreover, it is unclear what the term “width adjustment ratio of at least one road surface” is intended to be describing. Namely, it is unclear what the “at least one road surface” is being compared to (i.e. “at least one road surface”:[X]). Furthermore, the language seems to mix terms such that the nature of the claim terms are unclear. For example, the language appears to suggest that “the first group of width adjustment ratios” comprises a “plurality of road surfaces”, wherein the plurality of road surfaces further comprises “the at least one road surface”. In summary, it is unclear whether the width adjustment ratios and the road surfaces are either ratios or surfaces, and what the nature of the relationship is between these terms. Further, it is unclear how the widths of the plurality of road surfaces are intended to be adjusted by the width adjustment ratios (i.e. it is unclear what relationship the ratios have with the road surfaces, and how they are used, or what it means to adjust the width of road surfaces based on a width adjustment ratio). Further, the language “adjusting a width adjustment ratio” is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how the width adjustment ratio is adjusted, and to what end the width adjustment ratio is adjusted. Also, it is unclear whether the “the widths of the plurality of road surfaces” are adjusted, whether ratios are adjusted, or whether data regarding road surfaces is adjusted.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A road surface generation method, performed by a computer device, the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of road links of an electronic map;
modifying the plurality of road links [intended for obtaining a plurality of road surfaces having widths];
determining, when an overlap of road surfaces exists among the plurality of road surfaces, a first group of values [intended for adjusting the widths of the plurality of road surfaces];
identifying a value regarding [intended for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios in the second group of width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces among the plurality of road surfaces is not greater than a ratio threshold]; and
adjusting data regarding the plurality of road surfaces
Claims 2-11 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 2 recites: "The method according to claim 1, wherein adjusting the width adjustment ratio of the at least one road surface among the plurality of road surfaces in the first group of width adjustment ratios for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces comprises:
determining a plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs among the plurality of road surfaces according to the first group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios of two road surfaces of any imbalanced road surface pair among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs is greater than the ratio threshold;
clustering the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs for obtaining at least one imbalanced road surface set; and
adjusting width adjustment ratios of road surfaces in the at least one imbalanced road surface set in the first group of width adjustment ratios for obtaining the second group of width adjustment ratios, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces in any imbalanced road surface set among the at least one adjusted imbalanced road surface set is not greater than the ratio threshold."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method according to claim 1, wherein adjusting the width adjustment ratio of the at least one road surface among the plurality of road surfaces in the first group of width adjustment ratios [intended for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces comprises:
determining a plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs among the plurality of road surfaces according to the first group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios of two road surfaces of any imbalanced road surface pair among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs is greater than the ratio threshold;
clustering the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs [intended for obtaining at least one imbalanced road surface set]; and
adjusting width adjustment ratios of road surfaces in the at least one imbalanced road surface set in the first group of width adjustment ratios [intended for obtaining the second group of width adjustment ratios, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces in any imbalanced road surface set among the at least one adjusted imbalanced road surface set is not greater than the ratio threshold]]."
Claims 3-11 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 3 recites: "The method according to claim 2, wherein determining a plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs among the plurality of road surfaces according to the first group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces comprises:
determining, when an absolute value of a difference between a width adjustment ratio of each road surface among the plurality of road surfaces and a width adjustment ratio of an adjacent road surface of the road surface is greater than the ratio threshold, the each road surface and the adjacent road surface as an imbalanced road surface pair."
This language is rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Antecedent Basis: The following term(s) lack(s) proper antecedent basis:
“the road surface”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method according to claim 2, wherein determining a plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs among the plurality of road surfaces according to the first group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces comprises:
determining, when an absolute value of a difference between a width adjustment ratio of each road surface among the plurality of road surfaces and a width adjustment ratio of an adjacent road surface of the road surface is greater than the ratio threshold, the each road surface and the adjacent road surface as an imbalanced road surface pair."
Claim 4 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 4 recites: "The method according to claim 3, wherein the method further comprises:
traversing a plurality of adjacent road surfaces of the road surface;
using each adjacent road surface among the plurality of adjacent road surfaces as a currently traversed adjacent road surface;
comparing, when a serial number of the road surface is less than a serial number of the currently traversed adjacent road surface, the width adjustment ratio of the road surface and a width adjustment ratio of the currently traversed adjacent road surface; and
determining, when an absolute value of a difference between the width adjustment ratio of the road surface and the width adjustment ratio of the currently traversed adjacent road surface is greater than the ratio threshold, the road surface and the currently traversed adjacent road surface as one imbalanced road surface pair."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method according to claim 3, wherein the method further comprises:
traversing a plurality of adjacent road surfaces of a road surface;
using each adjacent road surface among the plurality of adjacent road surfaces as a currently traversed adjacent road surface;
comparing, when a serial number of a road surface is less than a serial number of the currently traversed adjacent road surface, the width adjustment ratio of a road surface and a width adjustment ratio of the currently traversed adjacent road surface; and
determining, when an absolute value of a difference between the width adjustment ratio of a road surface and the width adjustment ratio of the currently traversed adjacent road surface is greater than the ratio threshold, a road surface and the currently traversed adjacent road surface as one imbalanced road surface pair."
Claim 6 recites: "The method according to claim 2, wherein clustering the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs for obtaining at least one imbalanced road surface set comprises:
creating an imbalanced road surface group for each road surface among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs, the imbalanced road surface group being configured for storing a road surface having a width adjustment ratio imbalanced with each road surface;
adding, for each imbalanced road surface pair, each road surface in the imbalanced road surface pair to an imbalanced road surface group of the other road surface in the imbalanced road surface pair; and
clustering the imbalanced road surface group of each road surface among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs for obtaining the at least one imbalanced road surface set, wherein a width adjustment ratio of any road surface in an imbalanced road surface set of the at least one imbalanced road surface set is imbalanced with at least one road surface in the imbalanced road surface set."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method according to claim 2, wherein clustering the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs [intended for obtaining at least one imbalanced road surface set comprises:
creating an imbalanced road surface group [intended for each road surface among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs, the imbalanced road surface group being configured for storing a road surface having a width adjustment ratio imbalanced with each road surface];
adding, for each imbalanced road surface pair, each road surface in the imbalanced road surface pair to an imbalanced road surface group of an other road surface in the imbalanced road surface pair; and
clustering the imbalanced road surface group of each road surface among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs [intended for obtaining the at least one imbalanced road surface set, wherein a width adjustment ratio of any road surface in an imbalanced road surface set of the at least one imbalanced road surface set is imbalanced with at least one road surface in the imbalanced road surface set]."
Claims 7-8 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 7 recites: "The method according to claim 6, wherein clustering the imbalanced road surface group of each road surface among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs for obtaining the at least one imbalanced road surface set comprises:
creating a first set, the first set being configured for storing clustered road surfaces among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs;
traversing road surfaces in the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs and using each road surface in the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs as a currently traversed road surface;
creating an imbalanced road surface set when the first set does not comprise the currently traversed road surface; and
adding the currently traversed road surface and the road surfaces in an imbalanced road group of the currently traversed road surface to the first set and the imbalanced road surface set."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method according to claim 6, wherein clustering the imbalanced road surface group of each road surface among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs [intended for obtaining the at least one imbalanced road surface set comprises:
creating a first set, the first set being configured [intended for storing clustered road surfaces among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs];
traversing road surfaces in the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs and using each road surface in the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs as a currently traversed road surface;
creating an imbalanced road surface set when the first set does not comprise the currently traversed road surface; and
adding the currently traversed road surface and ]."
Claim 8 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 8 recites: "The method according to claim 7, wherein adding the currently traversed road surface and the road surfaces in an imbalanced road group of the currently traversed road surface to the first set and the imbalanced road surface set comprise:
adding the currently traversed road surface to the first set and a second set; and
performing target processing on each road surface in the second set, and, when the second set comprises no road surface, traversing a next road surface, wherein performing target processing on each road surface comprises:
moving the road surface from the second set to the imbalanced road surface set;
for any imbalanced road surface in the imbalanced road surface group of the road surface, adding the imbalanced road surface to the first set and the second set when the first set does not comprise the imbalanced road surface."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method according to claim 7, wherein adding the currently traversed road surface and
adding the currently traversed road surface to the first set and a second set; and
performing target processing on each road surface in the second set, and, when the second set comprises no road surface, traversing a next road surface, wherein performing target processing on each road surface comprises:
moving a road surface from the second set to the imbalanced road surface set;
[intended for any imbalanced road surface in the imbalanced road surface group of the road surface, adding the imbalanced road surface to the first set and the second set when the first set does not comprise the imbalanced road surface]."
Claim 9 recites: "The method according to claim 2, wherein adjusting width adjustment ratios of road surfaces in the at least one imbalanced road surface set in the first group of width adjustment ratios for obtaining the second group of width adjustment ratios comprises:
determining a reference road surface in the imbalanced road surface set, the reference road surface being a road surface in a to-be-processed state and having a minimum width adjustment ratio in the imbalanced road surface set;
setting the reference road surface to be in a processed state;
obtaining an adjacent road surface in the to-be-processed state for the reference road surface in the imbalanced road surface set;
adjusting a width adjustment ratio of the adjacent road surface in the first group of width adjustment ratios, wherein an absolute value of a difference between the width adjustment ratio of the reference road surface and the adjusted width adjustment ratio of the adjacent road surface is not greater than the ratio threshold; and
continuing to determine a next reference road surface in the imbalanced road surface set, until all road surfaces in the imbalanced road surface set are in the processed state."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method according to claim 2, wherein adjusting width adjustment ratios of road surfaces in the at least one imbalanced road surface set in the first group of width adjustment ratios [intended for obtaining the second group of width adjustment ratios comprises:
determining a reference road surface in the imbalanced road surface set, the reference road surface being a road surface in a to-be-processed state and having a minimum width adjustment ratio in the imbalanced road surface set;
setting the reference road surface [intended to be in a processed state];
obtaining an adjacent road surface in the to-be-processed state [intended for the reference road surface in the imbalanced road surface set];
adjusting a width adjustment ratio of the adjacent road surface in the first group of width adjustment ratios, wherein an absolute value of a difference between the width adjustment ratio of the reference road surface and the adjusted width adjustment ratio of the adjacent road surface is not greater than the ratio threshold; and
continuing to determine a next reference road surface in the imbalanced road surface set, until all road surfaces in the imbalanced road surface set are in the processed state."
Claims 10-11 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 11 recites: "The method according to claim 9, wherein determining a reference road surface in the imbalanced road surface set comprises:
generating an index value of each road surface in the imbalanced road surface set;
creating a minimum index tree according to a width adjustment ratio of a road surface in the imbalanced road surface set, the minimum index tree comprising an index value of the road surface in the to-be-processed state, a width adjustment ratio corresponding to an index value on a parent node in the minimum index tree being less than a width adjustment ratio corresponding to an index value on a child node; and
determining a road surface indicated by an index value on a root node of the minimum index tree as the reference road surface."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method according to claim 9, wherein determining a reference road surface in the imbalanced road surface set comprises:
generating an index value of each road surface in the imbalanced road surface set;
creating a minimum index tree according to a width adjustment ratio of a road surface in the imbalanced road surface set, the minimum index tree comprising an index value of a road surface in the to-be-processed state, a width adjustment ratio corresponding to an index value on a parent node in the minimum index tree being less than a width adjustment ratio corresponding to an index value on a child node; and
determining a road surface indicated by an index value on a root node of the minimum index tree as the reference road surface."
Claim 12 recites: "A road surface generation apparatus, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain a plurality of road links of an electronic map;
expand the plurality of road links for obtaining a plurality of road surfaces having widths;
determine, when an overlap of road surfaces exists among the plurality of road surfaces, a first group of width adjustment ratios for adjusting the widths of the plurality of road surfaces;
adjust a width adjustment ratio of at least one road surface among the plurality of road surfaces in the first group of width adjustment ratios for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios in the second group of width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces among the plurality of road surfaces is not greater than a ratio threshold; and
adjust the widths of the plurality of road surfaces based on the second group of width adjustment ratios."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A road surface generation apparatus, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain a plurality of road links of an electronic map;
modify the plurality of road links [intended for obtaining a plurality of road surfaces having widths];
determine, when an overlap of road surfaces exists among the plurality of road surfaces, a first group of values [intended for adjusting the widths of the plurality of road surfaces];
identify a value regarding [intended for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios in the second group of width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces among the plurality of road surfaces is not greater than a ratio threshold]; and
adjust data regarding the plurality of road surfaces
Claims 13-19 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 13 recites: "The road surface generation apparatus of claim 12, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor, being configured to adjust a width adjustment ratio of at least one road surface among the plurality of road surfaces in the first group of width adjustment ratios for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, is further configured to:
determine a plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs among the plurality of road surfaces according to the first group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios of two road surfaces of any imbalanced road surface pair among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs is greater than the ratio threshold;
cluster the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs for obtaining at least one imbalanced road surface set; and
adjust width adjustment ratios of road surfaces in the at least one imbalanced road surface set in the first group of width adjustment ratios for obtaining the second group of width adjustment ratios, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces in any imbalanced road surface set among the at least one adjusted imbalanced road surface set is not greater than the ratio threshold."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The road surface generation apparatus of claim 12, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor, being configured to adjust a width adjustment ratio of at least one road surface among the plurality of road surfaces in the first group of width adjustment ratios [intended for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, is further configured to:
determine a plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs among the plurality of road surfaces according to the first group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios of two road surfaces of any imbalanced road surface pair among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs is greater than the ratio threshold;
cluster the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs [intended for obtaining at least one imbalanced road surface set]; and
adjust width adjustment ratios of road surfaces in the at least one imbalanced road surface set in the first group of width adjustment ratios [intended for obtaining the second group of width adjustment ratios, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces in any imbalanced road surface set among the at least one adjusted imbalanced road surface set is not greater than the ratio threshold]]."
Claims 14-19 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 14 recites: "The road surface generation apparatus of claim 13, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor, being configured to determine a plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs among the plurality of road surfaces according to the first group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, is further configured to:
determine, when an absolute value of a difference between a width adjustment ratio of each road surface among the plurality of road surfaces and a width adjustment ratio of an adjacent road surface of the road surface is greater than the ratio threshold, the each road surface and the adjacent road surface as an imbalanced road surface pair."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The road surface generation apparatus of claim 13, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor, being configured to determine a plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs among the plurality of road surfaces according to the first group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, is further configured to:
determine, when an absolute value of a difference between a width adjustment ratio of each road surface among the plurality of road surfaces and a width adjustment ratio of an adjacent road surface of a road surface is greater than the ratio threshold, the each road surface and the adjacent road surface as an imbalanced road surface pair."
Claims 15-16 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 15 recites: "The road surface generation apparatus of claim 14, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor is further configured to:
traverse a plurality of adjacent road surfaces of the road surface;
use each adjacent road surface among the plurality of adjacent road surfaces as a currently traversed adjacent road surface;
compare, when a serial number of the road surface is less than a serial number of the currently traversed adjacent road surface, the width adjustment ratio of the road surface and a width adjustment ratio of the currently traversed adjacent road surface; and
determine, when an absolute value of a difference between the width adjustment ratio of the road surface and the width adjustment ratio of the currently traversed adjacent road surface is greater than the ratio threshold, the road surface and the currently traversed adjacent road surface as one imbalanced road surface pair."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The road surface generation apparatus of claim 14, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor is further configured to:
traverse a plurality of adjacent road surfaces of a road surface;
use each adjacent road surface among the plurality of adjacent road surfaces as a currently traversed adjacent road surface;
compare, when a serial number of a road surface is less than a serial number of the currently traversed adjacent road surface, the width adjustment ratio of a road surface and a width adjustment ratio of the currently traversed adjacent road surface; and
determine, when an absolute value of a difference between the width adjustment ratio of a road surface and the width adjustment ratio of the currently traversed adjacent road surface is greater than the ratio threshold, a road surface and the currently traversed adjacent road surface as one imbalanced road surface pair."
Claim 17 recites: "The road surface generation apparatus of claim 13, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor, being configured to cluster set for obtaining the at least one imbalanced road surface set, is further configured to:
create an imbalanced road surface group for each road surface among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs, the imbalanced road surface group being configured for storing a road surface having a width adjustment ratio imbalanced with each road surface;
add, for each imbalanced road surface pair, each road surface in the imbalanced road surface pair to an imbalanced road surface group of the other road surface in the imbalanced road surface pair; and
cluster the imbalanced road surface group of each road surface among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs for obtaining the at least one imbalanced road surface set, wherein a width adjustment ratio of any road surface in an imbalanced road surface set of the at least one imbalanced road surface set is imbalanced with at least one road surface in the imbalanced road surface set."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The road surface generation apparatus of claim 13, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor, being configured to cluster set [intended for obtaining the at least one imbalanced road surface set, is further configured to:
create an imbalanced road surface group [intended for each road surface among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs, the imbalanced road surface group being configured for storing a road surface having a width adjustment ratio imbalanced with each road surface];
add, for each imbalanced road surface pair, each road surface in the imbalanced road surface pair to an imbalanced road surface group of a other road surface in the imbalanced road surface pair; and
cluster the imbalanced road surface group of each road surface among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs [intended for obtaining the at least one imbalanced road surface set, wherein a width adjustment ratio of any road surface in an imbalanced road surface set of the at least one imbalanced road surface set is imbalanced with at least one road surface in the imbalanced road surface set]]."
Claim 18 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 18 recites: "The road surface generation apparatus of claim 17, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor, being configured to cluster the imbalanced road surface group of each road surface among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs for obtaining the at least one imbalanced road surface set, is further configured to:
create a first set, the first set being configured for storing clustered road surfaces among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs;
traverse road surfaces in the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs and using each road surface in the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs as a currently traversed road surface;
create the imbalanced road surface set when the first set does not comprise the currently traversed road surface; and
add the currently traversed road surface and the road surfaces in an imbalanced road group of the currently traversed road surface to the first set and the imbalanced road surface set."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The road surface generation apparatus of claim 17, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor, being [intended to cluster the imbalanced road surface group of each road surface among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs [intended for obtaining the at least one imbalanced road surface set, is further configured to:
create a first set, the first set being configured [intended for storing clustered road surfaces among the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs];
traverse road surfaces in the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs and using each road surface in the plurality of imbalanced road surface pairs as a currently traversed road surface;
create the imbalanced road surface set when the first set does not comprise the currently traversed road surface; and
add the currently traversed road surface and ]]]."
Claim 19 recites: "The road surface generation apparatus of claim 13, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor, being configured to adjust width adjustment ratios of road surfaces in the at least one imbalanced road surface set in the first group of width adjustment ratios for obtaining the second group of width adjustment ratios, is further configured to:
determine a reference road surface in an imbalanced road surface set, the reference road surface being a road surface in a to-be-processed state and having a minimum width adjustment ratio in the imbalanced road surface set;
set the reference road surface to be in a processed state;
obtain an adjacent road surface in the to-be-processed state for the reference road surface in the imbalanced road surface set;
adjust a width adjustment ratio of the adjacent road surface in the first group of width adjustment ratios, wherein an absolute value of a difference between the width adjustment ratio of the reference road surface and the adjusted width adjustment ratio of the adjacent road surface is not greater than the ratio threshold; and
continue to determine a next reference road surface in the imbalanced road surface set, until all road surfaces in the imbalanced road surface set are in the processed state.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The road surface generation apparatus of claim 13, comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions, wherein the processor, being configured to adjust width adjustment ratios of road surfaces in the at least one imbalanced road surface set in the first group of width adjustment ratios [intended for obtaining the second group of width adjustment ratios, is further configured to:
determine a reference road surface in an imbalanced road surface set, the reference road surface being a road surface in a to-be-processed state and having a minimum width adjustment ratio in the imbalanced road surface set;
set the reference road surface [intended to be in a processed state];
obtain an adjacent road surface in the to-be-processed state [intended for the reference road surface in the imbalanced road surface set];
adjust a width adjustment ratio of the adjacent road surface in the first group of width adjustment ratios, wherein an absolute value of a difference between the width adjustment ratio of the reference road surface and the adjusted width adjustment ratio of the adjacent road surface is not greater than the ratio threshold; and
continue to determine a next reference road surface in the imbalanced road surface set, until all road surfaces in the imbalanced road surface set are in the processed state].”
Claim 20 recites: “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by a processor, configure the processor to:
obtain a plurality of road links of an electronic map；
expand the plurality of road links for obtaining a plurality of road surfaces having widths;
determine, when an overlap of road surfaces exists among the plurality of road surfaces, a first group of width adjustment ratios for adjusting the widths of the plurality of road surfaces;
adjust a width adjustment ratio of at least one road surface among the plurality of road surfaces in the first group of width adjustment ratios for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios in the second group of width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces among the plurality of road surfaces is not greater than a ratio threshold; and
adjust the widths of the plurality of road surfaces based on the second group of width adjustment ratios.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
“A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by a processor, configure the processor to:
obtain a plurality of road links of an electronic map;
modify the plurality of road links [intended for obtaining a plurality of road surfaces having widths];
determine, when an overlap of road surfaces exists among the plurality of road surfaces, a first group of width adjustment ratios [intended for adjusting the widths of the plurality of road surfaces];
identify a value regarding [intended for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios in the second group of width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces among the plurality of road surfaces is not greater than a ratio threshold]; and
adjust data regarding the plurality of road surfaces
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of a “mental process” and/or “mathematical concepts” as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 recite a computer implemented method for road surface data generation (and corresponding apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium), comprising obtaining electronic road map information, modifying the information, determining when an overlap of information exists, adjusting data values regarding road surfaces, and adjusting road surface width data. These steps relate to “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or methods for performing mathematical calculation. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of decision making based on map information.
Moreover, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims and their dependent claims recite the additional limitations of a computer device, processor, memory, and/or a non-transitory computer readable medium. These claim elements, however, are recited at such a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See also e.g. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that generic computer components such as a communications network, including an email server, telephone network, telephone unit and general purpose computers performing generic computer functions do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement, but is merely routine and conventional and that implementation of the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of the computer itself). See also e.g. at least Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2359 (describing that the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions, is well understood, routine and conventional).
The use of generic computer components to store, process and transmit information through an unspecified interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the recited elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are dependent on claims 1 and 12 and elaborate on the same abstract idea of the independent claims without adding significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-11 and 13-19 recite the same abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong (US 2022/0333931 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tong discloses a road surface generation method, performed by a computer device (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1-4 and related text), the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of road links of an electronic map (e.g. at least road line, see e.g. at least ¶ 5-14, 51-54, Fig. 1-6, and related text);
modifying the plurality of road links [intended for obtaining a plurality of road surfaces having widths] (id.);
determining, when an overlap of road surfaces exists among the plurality of road surfaces, a first group of values [intended for adjusting the widths of the plurality of road surfaces] (see e.g. at least ¶ 39-44, Fig. 3, and related text);
identifying a value regarding at least one road surface [intended for obtaining a second group of width adjustment ratios of the plurality of road surfaces, wherein an absolute value of a difference between width adjustment ratios in the second group of width adjustment ratios of any two road surfaces among the plurality of road surfaces is not greater than a ratio threshold] (id., see also e.g. at least Fig. 3-4, and related text); and
adjusting data regarding the plurality of road surfaces (id.).
Claims 12 and 20 are directed to substantially similar subject matter as claim 1, but in apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium form. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights