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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2024 211 438.3, filed on 11/29/2024.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2025 and 01/06/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 filed on 11/13/2025 are presently examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “calibration unit configured to carry out a calibration phase,” “an evaluation unit configured to calculate…,” and “correction unit configured to correct” in claim 13. These units are described in the claim and in Applicant’s specification to be components of the device claim 13’s preamble. The device is not described with any structure in Applicants specification. Typical structure, as a non-limiting example, would include processor, non-transitory storage, computer, etc. These do not appear to be present in the specification. As such 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are required for claims 13 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 13 recites “calibration unit configured to carry out a calibration phase,” “an evaluation unit configured to calculate…,” and “correction unit configured to correct” in claim 13. These units are described in the claim and in Applicant’s specification to be components of the device claim 13’s preamble. The device is not described with any structure in Applicants specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim limitation “13” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claim 13 recites “calibration unit configured to carry out a calibration phase,” “an evaluation unit configured to calculate…,” and “correction unit configured to correct” in claim 13. These units are described in the claim and in Applicant’s specification to be components of the device claim 13’s preamble. The device is not described with any structure in Applicants specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-12 are directed to a method. Claims 13-14 are directed to a device (i.e. a machine). Therefore, claims 1-14 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding claim 1: 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 1 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
The method for correcting a digital map comprising the following steps: carrying out a calibration phase including the following steps: selecting a first map section of the digital map, checking the first map section for errors and correcting the errors found in the first map section in a first correction stage, checking the corrected first map section for errors and correcting the errors found in the corrected first map section in a further correction stage, repeating the further correction stage until fewer than a predetermined number of errors are found in at least two successive correction stages, as a result of which a first number of correction stages of the first map section from the calibration phase is ascertained; ascertaining a second number of needed correction stages for remaining map sections of the digital map based on the first number of correction stages implemented in the calibration phase for the first map section, wherein the second number of needed correction stages is at least one correction stage less than the first number of correction stages implemented in the calibration phase; and checking and correcting the remaining map sections of the digital map with the ascertained second number of correction stages.
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally performing all steps above. As an example for how it may be done mentally, claim 3 explicitly recites that the method is performed by a person. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, there are no additional limitations. Accordingly, there are no additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 13: 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 13 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
A device, comprising: a calibration unit configured to carrying out a calibration phase with a first number of correction stages in a selected first map section of a digital map; an evaluation unit configured to calculate a second number of correction stages for remaining map sections of the digital map; and a correction unit configured to correct the remaining map sections according to the ascertained second number of correction stages.
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally performing the bolded steps above. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A device, comprising: a calibration unit configured to carrying out a calibration phase with a first number of correction stages in a selected first map section of a digital map;
an evaluation unit configured to calculate a second number of correction stages for remaining map sections of the digital map; and
a correction unit configured to correct the remaining map sections according to the ascertained second number of correction stages.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that these additional limitations merely use a device and corresponding units (which do not have sufficient structure in the specification). Under the assumption that these units are intended to be parts of a computer or generic computing device, a generic computing device performing otherwise mental processes is not sufficient to overcome an abstract idea rejection.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, claim 13 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor or generic computer components to gather data and perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Har-Noy et al. (US 20200081932 A1) in view of Lin (US 20250003765 A1), hereinafter referred to as Har-Noy, and Lin, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Har-Noy discloses The method for correcting a digital map ([FIGs 9, 10, and 12] verification, editing, and continued correction of digital map data) comprising the following steps:
carrying out a calibration phase including the following steps: selecting a first map section of the digital map ([FIG. 5 step 503] [FIG. 9 step 903] map section or image is selected for review),
checking the first map section for errors and correcting the errors found in the first map section in a first correction stage (FIG. 9 steps 903-904] [FIG. 10] [column 27] edit and correct the map, participants compare map vector 1001 with corresponding imagery 1002 and make corrections through map system 1006.);
checking the corrected first map section for errors and correcting the errors found in the corrected first map section in a further correction stage repeating the further correction stage until fewer than a predetermined number of errors are found in at least two successive correction stages ([0035] [0091] [FIG. 6] step 608 and 609, repeat analysis until max iteration or delta/error is less than threshold. [FIG. 9 steps 903-907] [FIG. 12] [FIG. 13] step 1307 repeat until limit reached.),
Har-Noy teaches a number of iterations will be required to meet quality thresholds for map corrections but fails to explicitly disclose a first number of correction stages of the first map section from the calibration phase is ascertained; Har-Noy teaches determining difficulty of other map sections ([0077] [0090]) and performing iterating correction of other map sections ([0035] multiple iterations [0081] [0091]), but fails to explicitly disclose ascertaining a second number of needed correction stages for remaining map sections of the digital map based on the first number of correction stages implemented in the calibration phase for the first map section, wherein the second number of needed correction stages is at least one correction stage less than the first number of correction stages implemented in the calibration phase; and checking and correcting the remaining map sections of the digital map with the ascertained second number of correction stages.
However, Lin teaches a first number of correction stages of the first map section from the calibration phase is ascertained ([0005-0007] number of passes to meet error measurement threshold [0020] determining 8 passes reach desired level of accuracy);
ascertaining a second number of needed correction stages for remaining map sections of the digital map based on the first number of correction stages implemented in the calibration phase for the first map section ([0020] uses previously determined number of passes for future required passes in other sections),
wherein the second number of needed correction stages is at least one correction stage less than the first number of correction stages implemented in the calibration phase; and checking and correcting the remaining map sections of the digital map with the ascertained second number of correction stages ([0040-0045] [especially 0043] bases number of future section passes on the number of first section passes, and provides an average and standard deviation of number of passes for future sections to achieve quality requirement. In at least one case, it uses the lesser number of passes for a future section [0043].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Har-Noy with Lin’s teaching of determining the number of passes required for a first section and using it to estimate the number of passes required for future sections to meet quality thresholds and using a lower bound of average and standard deviation for a future section. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to estimate the number of passes for future sections based on a first section and use less passes than the first section for a future section in order to produce a map to a desired level of accuracy efficiently (Lin [0001] “estimating the amount of trace data required to produce a map of an environment, and, more particularly, to efficiently producing such a map with a desired level of accuracy.”).
Regarding claim 2, Har-Noy discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the calibration phase is carried out separately for each type of map or specific map elements of the digital map in order to optimize a verification burden ([0076] different types of campaigns that analyze different map elements. [0079] types of objects [0082] different focus parameters in campaigns that result in low computational cost [0077 and 0088] difficult map types worked by more reliable users). Examiner notes intended use limitations do not carry patentable weight. Optimizing verification burden has no objective measure as recited in the limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Har-Noy discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein a correction stage of the first and further correction stages is implemented by a person or a manual reviewer, wherein the person compares the first map section with a reference map section with respect to at least one feature and manually corrects a deviation of the first map section from the reference map section in the first map section, using a graphical user interface. ([0038] humans perform the map corrections in a crowdsourcing platform [0044 and 0077] GUI discussed [0088 and 0091] vectors are overlaid onto the map and is sent for crowdsourced human verification. Official or reference data can come from existing accurate maps [0084-0086] Vectors can be a vector of tags to be verified [0081]).
Regarding claim 5, Har-Noy discloses The method according to claim 3, wherein, in each of the first and further correction stages, multiple manual reviewers examine the first or correct first map sections of the map for errors using the graphical user interface or AI models to increase accuracy of the review, wherein an error rate is estimated by applying a statistical method to results of the different reviewers or AI models (([0038] humans perform the map corrections in a crowdsourcing platform [0044 and 0077] GUI discussed [0025 and 0090] use participants with high reliability scores to refine the map data. [0088] “The user reliability score 1004 is calculated by calculating the deviation of a given user from the crowd, to identify the likelihood that certain users may contribute wrong information.”).
Regarding claim 7, Har-Noy discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the errors found in the first and further correction stages are stored in a database and used for further analysis ([0075 and 0092] stores corrected data for future use).
Regarding claim 9, Har-Noy discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein results of the calibration phase are displayed in a visual representation of a corrected digital map ([0070] displaying results of the campaigns requested to correct the map [0092] displaying map containing corrected data).
Regarding claim 10, Har-Noy discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the digital map includes at least two different types of regions, wherein the calibration phase is carried out for two regions of different types ([0084] different terrains [0039 and others] different regions. Calibration is performed for different terrains and regions.).
Har-Noy fails to explicitly disclose different numbers of needed correction stages ascertained during the calibration phase are applied to the different types of regions of the digital map.
However, Lin teaches different numbers of needed correction stages ascertained during the calibration phase are applied to the different types of regions of the digital map ([0063] map includes different geographic areas including different classes of map data [0064] different types of terrain maps [0020] estimation of the number of corrections stages needed to meet quality threshold [0044] calibration is done on different classes of data including but not limited to lane segments, geography, road curvature, lane configuration, road surface condition.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Har-Noy with Lin’s teaching of performing the same kind of map calibration and correction and estimation of the number of correction iterations required for an accuracy threshold across different geographic areas, terrain types, and classes of data, which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to result in different numbers of correction phases. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to perform map corrections on various types of geographic areas and terrain types including different classes of data in order to efficiently produce a map with acceptable accuracy (Lin [0001] “estimating the amount of trace data required to produce a map of an environment, and, more particularly, to efficiently producing such a map with a desired level of accuracy.”).
Regarding claim 11, Har-Noy discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein a prediction or a calculation of a remaining error rate or error probability is ascertained after each of the first and further correction stages to find out whether a predetermined value of the error rate has been achieved ([FIG. 10] reliability 1003 and [FIG. 6] steps 601-609. Correctness probabilities are estimated and iterated until below error threshold. [FIG. 9] steps 903-907. [FIG. 7] step 704.).
Regarding claim 12, Har-Noy discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein all map features and/or feature groups are evaluated and corrected in a single correction procedure or the correction procedure, including the calibration phase, is repeated separately for each of the map features and/or feature groups ([FIG. 5] steps 504-505 users identify all relevant options in section [FIG. 6] campaign collects tags and enter common analysis [FIG. 10] participants verify and correct vectors.).
Regarding claim 13, Har-Noy discloses A device, comprising: a calibration unit configured to carrying out a calibration phase with a first number of correction stages in a selected first map section of a digital map ([FIGs 9, 10, and 12] verification, editing, and continued correction of digital map data. [FIG. 5 step 503] [FIG. 9 step 903] map section or image is selected for review. [0035] [0091] [FIG. 6] step 608 and 609, repeat analysis until max iteration or delta/error is less than threshold. [FIG. 9 steps 903-907] [FIG. 12] [FIG. 13] step 1307 repeat until limit reached. The number of iterations is equal to the arbitrary “first number” of correction stages) correction unit configured to correct the remaining map sections ([0035] multiple iterations of all map sections [0081] [0091]).
Har-Noy fails to explicitly disclose an evaluation unit configured to calculate a second number of correction stages for remaining map sections of the digital map; and a correction unit configured to correct the remaining map sections according to the ascertained second number of correction stages.
However, Lin teaches an evaluation unit configured to calculate a second number of correction stages for remaining map sections of the digital map; and a correction unit configured to correct the remaining map sections according to the ascertained second number of correction stages ([0005-0007] number of passes to meet error measurement threshold [0020] determining 8 passes reach desired level of accuracy [0020] uses previously determined number of passes for future required passes in other sections [0040-0045] [especially 0043] bases number of future section passes on the number of first section passes, and provides an average and standard deviation of number of passes for future sections to achieve quality requirement. In at least one case, it uses the lesser number of passes for a future section [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Har-Noy with Lin’s teaching of determining the number of passes required for a first section and using it to estimate the number of passes required for future sections to meet quality thresholds and using a lower bound of average and standard deviation for a future section. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to estimate the number of passes for future sections based on a first section and use less passes than the first section for a future section in order to produce a map to a desired level of accuracy efficiently (Lin [0001] “estimating the amount of trace data required to produce a map of an environment, and, more particularly, to efficiently producing such a map with a desired level of accuracy.”).
Regarding claim 14, Har-Noy discloses The device according to claim 13, wherein the device is configured to perform the following steps: carrying out the calibration phase, the calibration phase including the following steps: selecting the first map section of the digital map ([FIGs 9, 10, and 12] verification, editing, and continued correction of digital map data. [FIG. 5 step 503] [FIG. 9 step 903] map section or image is selected for review.),
checking the first map section for errors and correcting the errors found in the first map section in a first correction stage (FIG. 9 steps 903-904] [FIG. 10] [column 27] edit and correct the map, participants compare map vector 1001 with corresponding imagery 1002 and make corrections through map system 1006.),
checking the corrected first map section for errors and correcting the errors found in the corrected first map section in a further correction stage, repeating the further correction stage until fewer than a predetermined number of errors are found in at least two successive correction stages ([0035] [0091] [FIG. 6] step 608 and 609, repeat analysis until max iteration or delta/error is less than threshold. [FIG. 9 steps 903-907] [FIG. 12] [FIG. 13] step 1307 repeat until limit reached.),
ascertaining the second number of correction stages for remaining map sections of the digital map based on the first number of correction stages implemented in the calibration phase for the first map section, wherein the second number of correction stages is at least one correction stage less than the first number of correction stages implemented in the calibration phase; and
checking and correcting the remaining map sections of the digital map with the ascertained second number of correction stages.
Har-Noy teaches a number of iterations will be required to meet quality thresholds for map corrections but fails to explicitly disclose the first number of correction stages of the first map section from the calibration phase is ascertained; Har-Noy teaches determining difficulty of other map sections ([0077] [0090]) and performing iterating correction of other map sections ([0035] multiple iterations [0081] [0091]), but fails to explicitly disclose ascertaining the second number of correction stages for remaining map sections of the digital map based on the first number of correction stages implemented in the calibration phase for the first map section, wherein the second number of correction stages is at least one correction stage less than the first number of correction stages implemented in the calibration phase; and checking and correcting the remaining map sections of the digital map with the ascertained second number of correction stages.
However, Lin teaches the first number of correction stages of the first map section from the calibration phase is ascertained ([0005-0007] number of passes to meet error measurement threshold [0020] determining 8 passes reach desired level of accuracy);
ascertaining the second number of correction stages for remaining map sections of the digital map based on the first number of correction stages implemented in the calibration phase for the first map section ([0020] uses previously determined number of passes for future required passes in other sections),
wherein the second number of correction stages is at least one correction stage less than the first number of correction stages implemented in the calibration phase; and checking and correcting the remaining map sections of the digital map with the ascertained second number of correction stages. ([0040-0045] [especially 0043] bases number of future section passes on the number of first section passes, and provides an average and standard deviation of number of passes for future sections to achieve quality requirement. In at least one case, it uses the lesser number of passes for a future section [0043].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Har-Noy with Lin’s teaching of determining the number of passes required for a first section and using it to estimate the number of passes required for future sections to meet quality thresholds and using a lower bound of average and standard deviation for a future section. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to estimate the number of passes for future sections based on a first section and use less passes than the first section for a future section in order to produce a map to a desired level of accuracy efficiently (Lin [0001] “estimating the amount of trace data required to produce a map of an environment, and, more particularly, to efficiently producing such a map with a desired level of accuracy.”).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Har-Noy in view of Lin, further in view of Guizilini et al. (US 20210387648 A1), hereinafter referred to as Guizilini.
Regarding claim 4, Har-Noy discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein an algorithm and machine learning model scores participants in the crowdsourcing map correction according to their accuracy ([at least 0088]), but fails to explicitly disclose a correction stage of the first and further correction stages is implemented automatically by an AI model, wherein the AI model checks the first map section with respect to at least one feature and corrects an error of the first map section in the first map section.
However, Guizilini teaches a correction stage of the first and further correction stages is implemented automatically by an AI model, wherein the AI model checks the first map section with respect to at least one feature and corrects an error of the first map section in the first map section ([0038] neural network detects deviations in the map [0039] performs iterations/cycles of corrections of the map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Har-Noy with Guizilini’s teaching of using an AI model that performs the error detection and iterative map corrections. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to do so in order to have higher accuracy (Guizilini [0003] “Although such a degree of accuracy can be acceptable for a vehicle operated by a human being, an operation of an autonomous vehicle can require a degree of accuracy that is within a decimeter. Accordingly, efforts to develop autonomous vehicles have been accompanied by efforts to improve the degree of accuracy of digital maps. Such efforts have led to the production of high definition maps”).
Regarding claim 6, Har-Noy fails to explicitly disclose The method according to claim 4, wherein the AI model is optimized by machine learning, wherein results of the first and further correction stages are used as training data for the AI model in order to improve future calibration phases.
However, Guizilini teaches the AI model is optimized by machine learning, wherein results of the first and further correction stages are used as training data for the AI model in order to improve future calibration phases ([0098] “receive, in response to the new image data for the first location 102 having been added to the set of image data 210, the image data 210 (with the new image data for the first location 102) for the neural network as a training input for a training operation of the neural network. At an operation 634, the processor 202 can cause one or more adjustments to one or more values of one or more weights of the weights of the set of node data 212”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Har-Noy with Guizilini’s teaching of training the model based on results of corrected data. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to train using corrected data in order to minimize the loss function of the neural network (Guizilini [0098] “so that a loss function for the training operation of the neural network is at a minimum value.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Har-Noy in view of Lin, further in view Kounev et al. (US 20220174502 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kounev.
Regarding claim 8, Har-Noy discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the first map section for the calibration phase is selected based on its complexity, and the higher complexity map section is selected. ([FIG. 5] step 503 chooses map section [FIG. 12] element 1203 uses difficulty as factor for section selection [0077] “enforce a sampling regimen wherein … more users might be assigned to more … difficult map sections”).
Har-Noy fails to explicitly disclose a map section in a city center having a higher complexity than map sections in a forested area or parkland.
However, Kounev teaches a map section in a city center having a higher complexity than map sections in a forested area or parkland ([0044] discusses correcting mislabeled maps or supplementing maps with information [0069] discusses how building-predominant areas like cities and suburbs have more buildings than non-predominant areas like nature, parks, and wetlands, which includes forests. More buildings is more complexity. Complexity is a broadly recited term in this claim. It is interpreted under BRI.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Har-Noy with Kounev’s teaching of correcting and supplementing maps with feature identification including buildings among different land types like building-predominant and non-building-predominant including cities, suburbs, parks, and nature. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to include complexity information using the number of buildings in different land types in order to reflect the amount of mapped content requiring verification and correction, of which Har-Noy prioritizes more complex verification processes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights