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 .
Claims 1-23 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 recites in part “characterises a map” and “that characterises the map” in line 7 and line 9, respectively. The limitation contains a grammatical error and should recites “characterizes.” An appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites in part “information for use in visualising” in line 9. The limitation contains a grammatical error and should recites “visualizing.” An appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites, in part “wherein the second portion of map data is removed based at least in part on determining that the second area”. Examiner believes the claim is similar to claim and should recite “wherein the second portion of map data is removed based at least in part on determining that the second area is located outside of the predetermined zone.” An appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 14-17, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonopolskiy et al., US 2017/0322036 (hereinafter Gonopolskiy).
For claims 1, 14, 21, Gonopolskiy teaches a computer-implemented method of managing one or more portions of map data stored on a data storage device, wherein the one or more portions of map data provide map data for respective one or more areas of a digital map, the method comprising:
determining whether a first portion of map data for a first area of the digital map is consistent with a second portion of map data, stored in the data storage device, for a second area adjacent the first area (see Gonopolskiy, [0038], [0041], [0043], [0045], “ensure consistency of road sections or links across tile boundaries wherein one tile is an updated version tile and the adjacent tile is a previous version tile” where determination is made whether “section of road” on map tile is consistent/updated with “section of road” on an “adjacent” map tile); and
triggering, based at least in part on the determination, an update or a removal of the second portion of map data (see Gonopolskiy, [0038], [0041], [0043], [0045], provide “map update” for a second adjacent tile to be “consistent with” first tile that is already updated across “tile boundary”).
For claim 12, Gonopolskiy teaches a computer-implemented method of managing, by a first apparatus, one or more portions of map data stored on a data storage device of a second apparatus, wherein the one or more portions of map data provide map data for respective one or more areas of a digital map, the method comprising:
determining, by the first apparatus, whether a first portion of map data for a first area of the digital map is consistent with a second portion of map data, stored in the data storage device of the second apparatus, for a second area adjacent the first area (see Gonopolskiy, [0038], [0041], [0043], [0045], “ensure consistency of road sections or links across tile boundaries wherein one tile is an updated version tile and the adjacent tile is a previous version tile” where determination is made whether “section of road” on map tile is consistent/updated with “section of road” on an “adjacent” map tile); and
causing, by the first apparatus, sending, to the second apparatus and based at least in part on the determination, an update of the second portion of map data (see Gonopolskiy, [0039], [0044], “updated” map information for a tile is “transmitted” to user device that is part of “navigation system”, second apparatus, “used to display a map region”).
For claims 2, 15, 22, Gonopolskiy teaches further comprising:
determining whether the first portion of map data is consistent with each portion of map data, stored in the data storage device, that represents an area adjacent the first area (see Gonopolskiy, [0038] “ensure consistency” across map “tiles” such that each involved map tile is consistent with “update version tile,” [0041], [0043], by determining “if/which links have been updated, changed, or added in the updated map information/data compared to the previous map information/data” of associated map “tiles”); and
triggering an update or a removal of each portion of map data determined to be inconsistent with the first portion of map data (see Gonopolskiy, [0041] – [0044], “tiles of the updated version of the map” are generated).
For claims 3, 16, 23, Gonopolskiy teaches wherein determining whether the first portion of map data is consistent with the second portion of map data comprises at least one of:
determining whether a first part of a map feature, indicated in the first portion of map data as extending from the first area into the second area, is consistent with a second part of the map feature indicated in the second portion of map data;
determining whether first information, from the first portion of map data and which characterises a map feature at a boundary between the first and second areas, is consistent with second information, from the second portion of the map data, that characterises the map feature at the boundary between the first and second areas;
determining whether first information, from the first portion of map data and which is indicative of a number of and/or a position of one or more navigable elements that extend into the second area, is consistent with second information, from the second portion of the map data, that is indicative of the number of and/or the position of the one or more navigable elements that extend into the second area from the first area;
determining whether a version of the first portion of map data and a version of the second portion of the map data are the same or similar or compatible; and
determining whether a duration of validity, associated with the second portion of map data, has expired (see Gonopolskiy, [0038], [0041] – [0043], where “road” or “link” that encompass first map tile and any “adjacent” map tile represents at least determining portion extending from first to second area; [0041], where determining “updaed version of the map” compared with “previous version of the map” at least represents determining version for first and second portion of map are compatible).
For claims 4, 17, Gonopolskiy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first portion of map data comprises an indication that a map feature extends from the first area into the second area, and wherein determining whether the first portion of map data is consistent with the second portion of map data comprises at least one of:
determining whether the second portion of map data comprises an indication of the map feature extending from the first area into the second area;
determining whether a first part of the map feature, in the first area, indicated in the first portion of map data is aligned with a second part of the map feature in the second area indicated in the second portion of map data; and
determining whether a first part of the map feature, in the first area, indicated in the first portion of map data is correctly connected to a second part of the map feature, in the second area, indicated in the second portion of map data (see Gonopolskiy, [0038], [0041] – [0043], where “road” or “link” that encompass first map tile and any “adjacent” map tile represents at least determining portion extending from first to second area and whether updated version of road/link is “properly algin across the boundary” of tiles).
For claim 6, Gonopolskiy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving the first portion of map data (see Gonopolskiy, [0041], “updated map information/data may be received”).
For claim 7, Gonopolskiy teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
sending a request to a source of portions of map data, wherein the first portion of map data is received from the source of portions of map data responsive at least in part to the request; and
wherein the request is at least one or more of:
a request for a portion of map data for the first area;
a request for one or more portions of map data for a region of the digital map that comprises at least the first area;
a request for one or more portions of map data associated with a route along one or more segments of navigable elements of a network of navigable elements represented by the digital map;
a request to receive a portion of map data for the first area and that is not stored on the data storage device;
a request to update a portion of map data, stored on the data storage device, for the first area;
a request to replace a portion of map data, stored on the data storage device, for the first area; and
a user triggered request (see Gonopolskiy, Fig. 1, [0039], [0041] – [0044], [0047], “tiles of the updated version of the map may be transmitted through a wired or wireless network” to requesting user to “navigate a route” along displayed “map region” represents at least request to “update apparatus” (source) for portions of map associated with route in digital map).
For claim 8, Gonopolskiy teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the request is sent based at least in part on one or more of:
determining whether the data storage device comprises a portion of map data for the first area;
determining whether a portion of map data, for the first area and which is stored on the data storage device, is current or up to date;
determining whether a duration of validity, associated with a portion of map data for the first area which is stored on the data storage device, has expired;
determining whether a source of portions of map data comprises a portion of map data for the first area that is newer than a portion of map data, stored on the data storage device, for the first area;
determining whether a portion of map data, for the first area and which is stored on the data storage device, is consistent with a portion of map data, stored on the data storage device, that represents an area adjacent the first area; and
a user request (see Gonopolskiy, [0038] – [0044], [0047], request for route on user navigation device at least determines storage device contains map data for first area with requested rout data, and also at least determines whether portion of map stored on device is current “updated map information” or “previous map information”).
For claim 10, Gonopolskiy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least some of the portions of map data comprise at least one or more of the following:
map tiles of a digital map;
one or more data layers;
information for use in route calculation;
information for use in route guidance;
information for use in lane level navigation;
information for use by in-vehicle robots, driving automation or safety systems;
information for use in visualising at least a part of the digital map on a display device; navigation information;
information representative of one or more segments of navigable elements of a network of navigable elements; and
Navigation Data Standard, NDS, tiles (see Gonopolskiy, [0038] – [0044], [0050], “tiles in the map” represent at least map tiles of a digital “map region”).
For claims 11, 20, Gonopolskiy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the data storage device comprises at least one or more of:
a map cache;
a navigation data cache; and
a map visualization data cache (see Gonopolskiy, [0070], “map update information/data” stored “locally” in “user apparatus” represents map cache).
For claim 13, Gonopolskiy teaches the method of claim 12, wherein:
the first apparatus is a server (see Gonopolskiy, [0039], “the update apparatus 10 may be located remotely from the user apparatus 20” represents server); and
the second apparatus is at least one or more of:
a client device;
a mobile navigation apparatus;
a PND;
an in-vehicle navigation system;
a driving automation system; and
a safety system (see Gonopolskiy, [0039], “user apparatus 20” for “navigation” represents client device second apparatus).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 9, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonopolskiy et al., US 2017/0322036 (hereinafter Gonopolskiy) in view of Schwartz et al., US 2023/0392952 (hereinafter Schwartz).
For claims 5, 18, Gonopolskiy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising
determining whether to update or remove the second portion of map data based at least in part on determining whether the second area is located within a predetermined zone (see Gonopolskiy, [0038] – [0043], [0047], second tile is located in area associated with “link” represents determining second area is within predetermined zone); and
wherein the second portion of map data is updated based at least in part on determining that the second area is located within the predetermined zone (see Gonopolskiy, [0038] – [0043], [0047], updating second adjacent map tile in zone associated with link if/when necessary).
Schwartz teaches wherein the second portion of map data is removed based at least in part on determining that the second area is located outside of the predetermined zone (see Schwartz, [0364] – [0365], “delete (or overwrite) the first tile and/or the previously retrieved tiles that are not adjacent to the second tile. Alternatively or additionally, vehicle 2702 may delete (or overwrite) one or more previously retrieved tiles that are not within a predetermined distance from the second tile” represents removing second portion outside predetermined zone). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Gonopolskiy with the teachings of Schwartz to remove unnecessary map data that reduces memory usage and computation load for navigation system computer (see Schwartz, [0269], [0365]).
For claims 9, 19, Gonopolskiy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
triggering an update of the second portion of map data comprises sending a request, to a source of portions of map data, for an update of the second portion of map data (see Gonopolskiy, [0038] – [0043], [0047], updating second adjacent map tile in zone associated with link if/when necessary of user apparatus from updating apparatus/source).
Schwartz teaches triggering a removal of the second portion of map data comprises deleting the second portion of map data stored on the data storage device (see Schwartz, [0364] – [0365], “delete (or overwrite) the first tile and/or the previously retrieved tiles that are not adjacent to the second tile. Alternatively or additionally, vehicle 2702 may delete (or overwrite) one or more previously retrieved tiles that are not within a predetermined distance from the second tile” represents removing second portion outside predetermined zone). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Gonopolskiy with the teachings of Schwartz to remove unnecessary map data that reduces memory usage and computation load for navigation system computer (see Schwartz, [0269], [0365]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chawathe et al., US 2015/0170387. (US 9,202,311).
Beesley et al., US 6,708,112.
Aleksic et al., US 2007/0126605. [0047].
Olthoff et al., US 2024/0401972. [0100], [0106].
Lublinsky et al., US 2016/0275131.
Richter US 2015/0310038. (US 11,113,321)
Stahlin US 2011/0071756.
Kahn et al., US 2015/0300823.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENSEN HU whose telephone number is (571)270-3803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/JENSEN HU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169