DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/2/2023 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
MaaS has to be defined in claim 1 (line 3 page 1).
“a” is missing in the “.. acquiring prediction of dispatch service environment …” sentence before the word “prediction” (line 13 page 1).
Replace “before dispatch” in claim 5 (page 2 line 10 of claims) and in claim (page 2 line 14) with “before the inoperable vehicle is dispatched”. It is difficult to understand what the sentence is conveying in its original form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
“CONTROL” is spelled “CNTROL” in the P140 block of Fig. 10.
The word “DISPATCH” is spelled incorrectly in the S240 block of Fig. 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The first sentence of page 30 line 11 contains a mistake: “When there is a route having no the extracted points …”. This is at the start of paragraph (119).
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, 5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
Independent claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for determining an abnormal driving by a second vehicle. Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories (i.e., an apparatus).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I: Judicial Exception – Yes – Abstract Ideas
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bold below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites A system comprising:
a plurality of MaaS vehicles; one or more processors; and a memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors,
cause the one or more processors to execute generating a dispatch plan for the plurality of MaaS vehicles, wherein the plurality of MaaS vehicles includes one or more autonomous vehicles performing autonomous driving in accordance with the dispatch plan, and
the generating the dispatch plan [abstract idea (mental process)] includes: acquiring an operational design domain of the one or more autonomous vehicles; acquiring a prediction of dispatch service environment for a predetermined period of time in the future regarding a dispatch service area of the one or more autonomous vehicles;
specifying an inoperable vehicle among the one or more autonomous vehicles based on the operational design domain [abstract idea (mental process)] and the prediction of dispatch service environment, the inoperable vehicle being an autonomous vehicle that is predicted not to satisfy the operational design domain in the dispatch plan currently generated [abstract idea (mental process)];
and modifying the dispatch plan depending on vehicle information or service information of the inoperable vehicle [abstract idea (mental process)].
The examiner submits that the foregoing 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 generating the dispatch plan” encompasses a person creating a plan. “Specifying an inoperable vehicle among the one or more autonomous vehicles based on the operational design domain and the prediction of dispatch service environment, the inoperable vehicle being an autonomous vehicle that is predicted not to satisfy the operational design domain in the dispatch plan currently generated” encompasses a person deciding that a vehicle is not operable based on available data. “modifying the dispatch plan depending on vehicle information or service information of the inoperable vehicle” encompasses a person modifying a plan depending on available data.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II: Practical Application – No
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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.”
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A plurality of MaaS vehicles [common vehicles]; one or more processors [generic computer module (processor)]; and a memory [generic computer module (memory)]; storing executable instructions that, when executed [extra-solution activity (execution of instructions)] by the one or more processors,
cause the one or more processors to execute generating a dispatch plan [extra-solution activity (execution a program)] for the plurality of MaaS vehicles, wherein the plurality of MaaS vehicles includes one or more autonomous vehicles [common vehicles]; performing autonomous driving in accordance with the dispatch plan [extra-solution activity (execution a function based on a plan)], and
the generating the dispatch plan includes [abstract idea (mental process)]: acquiring an operational design domain of the one or more autonomous vehicles [pre-solution activity (collection of data)]; acquiring a prediction of dispatch service environment for a predetermined period of time in the future regarding a dispatch service area of the one or more autonomous vehicles [pre-solution activity (collection of data)];
specifying an inoperable vehicle among the one or more autonomous vehicles based on the operational design domain and the prediction of dispatch service environment, the inoperable vehicle being an autonomous vehicle that is predicted not to satisfy the operational design domain in the dispatch plan currently generated [abstract idea (mental process)];
and modifying the dispatch plan depending on vehicle information or service information of the inoperable vehicle [abstract idea (mental process)].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements of a plurality of MaaS vehicles [common vehicles]; one or more processors [generic computer module (processor)]; and a memory [generic computer module (memory)]; storing executable instructions that, when executed [extra-solution activity (execution of instructions)] by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to execute generating a dispatch plan [extra-solution activity (execution a program)] for the plurality of MaaS vehicles, wherein the plurality of MaaS vehicles includes one or more autonomous vehicles [common vehicles]; performing autonomous driving in accordance with the dispatch plan [extra-solution activity (execution a function based on a plan)], and acquiring an operational design domain of the one or more autonomous vehicles [pre-solution activity (collection of data)]; acquiring a prediction of dispatch service environment for a predetermined period of time in the future regarding a dispatch service area of the one or more autonomous vehicles [pre-solution activity (collection of data)].
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
101 Analysis - Step 2B: Inventive Concept: - No
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent 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. As discussed above, with respect to the following additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are generic computer parts or additional elements that perform common activities.
The devices and functions recited above, as disclosed in the claim, and as analyzed in previous sections, are additional elements that, individually or in combination, amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional hardware and functions. These additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination) don’t amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Independent claim 7 is also directed to a mental process for the same reasons discussed previously regarding independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 5 and 9 are rejected because, as dependent of claims 1 and 7, respectively, they fail to clear the deficiencies discussed above. The dependent claims do not add a practical application or significantly more to the abstract idea because they merely add detail to the mental process steps or constitute insignificant additional elements. Therefore, the claims as a whole are still directed to a mental process.
Thus, claims 1, 5, 7 and 9 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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, 5, 7 and 9 are being rejected under 35 U.C.S. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US20190108539A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe et al. discloses a system comprising: plurality of MaaS vehicles (Fig. 1 and paragraphs (22) and (24) disclose a vehicle dispatch system capable of controlling a plurality of vehicles) one or more processors (paragraph 26); and a memory storing executable instructions (paragraph 26) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to execute generating a dispatch plan for the plurality of MaaS vehicles (Figures 6 and 7 disclose flowcharts illustrating examples of operations performed by the vehicle dispatch system. It is understood that this system meets or exceeds the minimum components needed to be qualified as a Mobility as a Service, or MaaS, system. Paragraph (49) discloses that the processing unit generates the dispatch plan), wherein the plurality of MaaS vehicles includes one or more autonomous vehicles performing autonomous driving in accordance with the dispatch plan (Paragraph (6) discloses a vehicle dispatch device configured to dispatch a vehicle having an autonomous driving function.), and the generating the dispatch plan including: acquiring an operational design domain (ODD) of the one or more autonomous vehicles; acquiring a prediction of dispatch service environment for a predetermined period of time in the future regarding a dispatch service area of the one or more autonomous vehicles; specifying an inoperable vehicle among the one or more autonomous vehicles based on the operational design domain and the prediction of dispatch service environment, the inoperable vehicle being an autonomous vehicle that is predicted not to satisfy the operational design domain in the dispatch plan currently generated (Watanabe et al. discloses in paragraph (53) that the server may predict or determine the case where the dispatched vehicle can’t continue the autonomous driving to the destination. Examples of such cases, as disclosed in same paragraph, may include weather getting worse, accidents, and construction in the path to the destination. These are referred to as events, and it is disclosed that these events may be predicted to happen implying that they may happen in the future. Instant application discloses examples of prediction of dispatch service environment as being forecasting weather or road conditions and that such events may result in a vehicle not satisfying the ODD in the future. Watanabe et al. discloses in Paragraph (78) an example of the system acquiring information related to construction activity on the travel route to the destination and predicts that the autonomous driving may end. It is inherent that if the system can predict that a vehicle may become non-operable due to the dispatch service environment then it must have the capability to acquire a prediction of the dispatch service environment for a predetermined period of time in the future regarding a dispatch service area of the one or more autonomous vehicles. Furthermore, above disclosures clarify that the system is capable of specifying an inoperable vehicle among the one or more autonomous vehicles based on the operational design domain and the prediction of dispatch service environment. Therefore, above disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in above segments of claim 1.). Watanabe et al. discloses modifying the dispatch plan depending on vehicle information or service information of the inoperable vehicle (Paragraph 52 discloses that the system searches for an alternative vehicle for the user. The reason for attempting to identify an alternative vehicle is that the first vehicle is no longer able to travel autonomously for reasons such as prediction of rain or construction in the path to the destination or fallen objects as disclosed in paragraph (53). Paragraph (57) discloses that the vehicle dispatch processing unit generates a proposal to be displayed on the user’s device as an alternative vehicle. This is substantially the same as modifying the dispatch plan. The modification of the dispatch plan is obviously being made based on, at least, information related to the first vehicle indicating that it can’t travel autonomously in the near future.).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe et al. discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the modifying the dispatch plan includes modifying the dispatch plan to replace the inoperable vehicle before dispatch with an autonomous vehicle satisfying the operational design domain in the dispatch plan or a vehicle driven by a driver (We interpret this claim to mean that a vehicle has been determined not to satisfy the ODD before being dispatched and that it needs to be replaced by a other vehicle. We already established in the section of this office action regarding 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 that Watanabe et al. can specify an inoperable vehicle based on the operational design domain and the prediction of dispatch service environment and that the dispatch plan can be modified depending on vehicle information or service information of the inoperable vehicle. It is understood that such a system can modify the dispatch plan to replace the inoperable vehicle before the inoperable vehicle is dispatched with an autonomous vehicle satisfying the operational design domain.).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses a method for managing dispatch service of a plurality of MaaS vehicles being dispatched in accordance with a dispatch plan, the plurality of MaaS vehicles including one or more autonomous vehicles performing autonomous driving in accordance with the dispatch plan (Watanabe et al. discloses in figures 6 and 7 disclose flowcharts illustrating examples of operations performed by the vehicle dispatch system. Fig. 1 and paragraphs (22) and (24) disclose a vehicle dispatch system capable of controlling a plurality of vehicles. It is understood that this system meets or exceeds the minimum components needed to be qualified as a Mobility as a Service, or MaaS, system. Paragraph (6) discloses a vehicle dispatch device configured to dispatch a vehicle having an autonomous driving function.), the method comprising: acquiring an operational design domain (ODD) of the one or more autonomous vehicles; acquiring a prediction of dispatch service environment for a predetermined period of time in the future regarding a dispatch service area of the one or more autonomous vehicles; specifying an inoperable vehicle among the one or more autonomous vehicles based on the operational design domain and the prediction of dispatch service environment, the inoperable vehicle being an autonomous vehicle that is predicted not to satisfy the operational design domain in the dispatch plan currently generated (Watanabe et al. discloses in paragraph (53) that the server may predict or determine the case where the dispatched vehicle can’t continue the autonomous driving to the destination. Examples of such cases, as disclosed in same paragraph, may include weather getting worse, accidents, and construction in the path to the destination. These are referred to as events, and it is disclosed that these events may be predicted to happen implying that they may happen in the future. Instant application discloses examples of prediction of dispatch service environment as being forecasting weather or road conditions and that such events may result in a vehicle not satisfying the ODD in the future. Watanabe et al. discloses in Paragraph (78) an example of the system acquiring information related to construction activity on the travel route to the destination and predicts that the autonomous driving may end. It is inherent that if the system can predict that a vehicle may become non-operable due to the dispatch service environment then it must have the capability to acquire a prediction of the dispatch service environment for a predetermined period of time in the future regarding a dispatch service area of the one or more autonomous vehicles. Furthermore, above disclosures clarify that the system is capable of specifying an inoperable vehicle among the one or more autonomous vehicles based on the operational design domain and the prediction of dispatch service environment. Therefore, above disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in above segments of claim 7.). Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses modifying the dispatch plan depending on vehicle information or service information of the inoperable vehicle (Paragraph 52 of Watanabe et al. discloses that the system searches for an alternative vehicle for the user. The reason for attempting to identify an alternative vehicle is that the first vehicle is no longer able to travel autonomously for reasons such as prediction of rain or construction in the path to the destination or fallen objects as disclosed in paragraph (53). Paragraph (57) discloses that the vehicle dispatch processing unit generates a proposal to be displayed on the user’s device as an alternative vehicle. This is substantially the same as modifying the dispatch plan. The modification of the dispatch plan is obviously being made based on, at least, information related to the first vehicle indicating that it can’t travel autonomously in the near future.).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe et al. discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the modifying the dispatch plan includes modifying the dispatch plan to replace the inoperable vehicle before dispatch with an autonomous vehicle satisfying the operational design domain in the dispatch plan or a vehicle driven by a driver (We interpret this claim to mean that a vehicle has been determined not to satisfy the ODD before being dispatched and that it needs to be replaced by a other vehicle. We already established in the section of this office action regarding 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 that Watanabe et al. can specify an inoperable vehicle based on the operational design domain and the prediction of dispatch service environment and that the dispatch plan can be modified depending on vehicle information or service information of the inoperable vehicle. It is understood that such a system can modify the dispatch plan to replace the inoperable vehicle before the inoperable vehicle is dispatched with an autonomous vehicle satisfying the operational design domain.).
Claims 2, 6 and 10 are being rejected under 35 U.C.S. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US20190108539A1) in view of Heyl (US20210109528).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe et al. disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein each of the one or more autonomous vehicles is configured to: make a stop when the operational design domain is not satisfied (Watanabe et al. discloses in paragraph (52) that when the dispatched vehicle can’t continue the autonomous driving to the destination during the autonomous driving of the dispatched vehicle on which the user is boarded, the search unit searches for a first alternative moving object to which the user can transfer to. The reason for attempting to identify an alternative vehicle is that the first vehicle is no longer able to travel autonomously for reasons such as prediction of rain or construction in the path to the destination or fallen objects as disclosed in paragraph (53). Therefore, the operational design domain is not satisfied for the first vehicle. It is understood that the vehicle must stop first before above mentioned transfer can take place. This is substantially the same as what is disclosed in above segment of claim 2.).
Watanabe et al. does not disclose traveling following a preceding vehicle, the preceding vehicle being any one of the plurality of MaaS vehicles passing by the each of the one or more autonomous vehicles after the stop; and resume the autonomous driving when the operational design domain is satisfied while traveling following the preceding vehicle (Heyl discloses in paragraph (5) that the vehicle that does not meet the ODD may stop. Fig. 7 discloses two vehicles in the vicinity of above mentioned vehicle. One of these vehicles 715 is located in the adjacent lane slightly behind above vehicle. Paragraph (31) discloses that a message goes to both vehicles asking for those vehicles to act as a pilot that the vehicle can follow while in a region where it is deemed in-operable. Same paragraph discloses that a vehicle may decline this request. Therefore, it is possible that the vehicle in the front of the in-operable vehicle may decline above mentioned request while the vehicle 715, which is slightly behind the subject vehicle, may accept the request. If vehicle 715 accepts this request then it must pass the subject vehicle first in order to be able to act as a pilot vehicle leading from the front. Paragraph (32) discloses that a pilot vehicle may position itself in front of the autonomous vehicle. Paragraph (6) also discloses that the vehicle follows the pilot vehicle until it reenters a region where it satisfies the ODD. These disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in claim 2 of instant application.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this invention to modify the teaching of Watanabe et al., as modified, in view of Heyl to disclose a system wherein an autonomous vehicle that does not satisfy the ODD stops, waits for a pilot vehicle to pass by, and follow that pilot vehicle in to a region where is satisfies the ODD to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the system.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein the modifying the dispatch plan includes, when there is a set of specified inoperable vehicles before dispatch predicted not to satisfy the operational design domain at the same point, modifying the dispatch plan to replace at least one of the specified inoperable vehicles before dispatch with an autonomous vehicle satisfying the operational design domain in the dispatch plan or a vehicle driven by a driver (We interpret this claim to mean that a set of vehicles have been determined not to satisfy the ODD before they were dispatched. We already established in the section of this office action regarding 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 that Watanabe et al. can specify an inoperable vehicle based on the operational design domain and the prediction of dispatch service environment and that the dispatch plan can be modified depending on vehicle information or service information of the inoperable vehicle. Therefore, Watanabe et al. can also specify a set of inoperable vehicles based on the operational design domain and the prediction of dispatch service environment and that the dispatch plan can be modified depending on vehicle information or service information of the inoperable vehicles. It is understood that such a system can modifying the dispatch plan to replace once of the inoperable vehicles before the inoperable vehicles are dispatched with an autonomous vehicle satisfying the operational design domain in the dispatch plan.).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein each of the one or more autonomous vehicles is configured to: make a stop when the operational design domain is not satisfied (Watanabe et al. discloses in paragraph (52) that when the dispatched vehicle can’t continue the autonomous driving to the destination during the autonomous driving of the dispatched vehicle on which the user is boarded, the search unit searches for a first alternative moving object to which the user can transfer to. The reason for attempting to identify an alternative vehicle is that the first vehicle is no longer able to travel autonomously for reasons such as prediction of rain or construction in the path to the destination or fallen objects as disclosed in paragraph (53). Therefore, the operational design domain is not satisfied for the first vehicle. It is understood that the vehicle must stop first before above mentioned transfer can take place. This is substantially the same as what is disclosed in above segment of claim 10.).
Watanabe et al. does not disclose traveling following a preceding vehicle, the preceding vehicle being any one of the plurality of MaaS vehicles passing by the each of the one or more autonomous vehicles after the stop; and resume the autonomous driving when the operational design domain is satisfied while traveling following the preceding vehicle (Heyl discloses in paragraph (5) that the vehicle that does not meet the ODD may stop. Fig. 7 discloses two vehicles in the vicinity of above mentioned vehicle. One of these vehicles 715 is located in the adjacent lane slightly behind above vehicle. Paragraph (31) discloses that a message goes to both vehicles asking for those vehicles to act as a pilot that the vehicle can follow while in a region where it is deemed in-operable. Same paragraph discloses that a vehicle may decline this request. Therefore, it is possible that the vehicle in the front of the in-operable vehicle may decline above mentioned request while the vehicle 715, which is slightly behind the subject vehicle, may accept the request. If vehicle 715 accepts this request then it must pass the subject vehicle first in order to be able to act as a pilot vehicle leading from the front. Paragraph (32) discloses that a pilot vehicle may position itself in front of the autonomous vehicle. Paragraph (6) also discloses that the vehicle follows the pilot vehicle until it reenters a region where it satisfies the ODD. These disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in above segment of claim 10 of instant application.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this invention to modify the teaching of Watanabe et al., as modified, in view of Heyl to disclose a system wherein an autonomous vehicle that does not satisfy the ODD stops, waits for a pilot vehicle to pass by, and follow that pilot vehicle in to a region where is satisfies the ODD to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the system.
Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses the method, wherein the modifying the dispatch plan includes, when there is a set of specified inoperable vehicles before dispatch predicted not to satisfy the operational design domain at the same point, modifying the dispatch plan to replace at least one of the specified inoperable vehicles before dispatch with an autonomous vehicle satisfying the operational design domain in the dispatch plan or a vehicle driven by a driver (We interpret this claim to mean that a set of vehicles have been determined not to satisfy the ODD before they were dispatched. We already established in the section of this office action regarding 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 that Watanabe et al. can specify an inoperable vehicle based on the operational design domain and the prediction of dispatch service environment and that the dispatch plan can be modified depending on vehicle information or service information of the inoperable vehicle. Therefore, Watanabe et al. can also specify a set of inoperable vehicles based on the operational design domain and the prediction of dispatch service environment and that the dispatch plan can be modified depending on vehicle information or service information of the inoperable vehicles. It is understood that such a system can modifying the dispatch plan to replace once of the inoperable vehicles before the inoperable vehicles are dispatched with an autonomous vehicle satisfying the operational design domain in the dispatch plan.).
Claims 3, 4 and 8 are being rejected under 35 U.C.S. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US20190108539A1) in view of Karlsson et al. (US10543841B2) in view of Heyl (US20210109528A1).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe et al, as modified, does not disclose the system according to claim 2, wherein the modifying the dispatch plan includes modifying the dispatch plan to let one or more pilot vehicles, as the preceding vehicle, pass through a point where it is predicted that the inoperable vehicle does not satisfy the operational design domain, the one or more pilot vehicles being selected among the plurality of MaaS vehicles.
Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses that the dispatch plan can be modified (Watanabe et al. discloses in paragraph 52 that the system searches for an alternative vehicle for the user. The reason for attempting to identify an alternative vehicle is that the first vehicle is no longer able to travel autonomously for reasons such as prediction of rain or construction in the path to the destination or fallen objects as disclosed in paragraph (53). Paragraph (57) discloses that the vehicle dispatch processing unit generates a proposal to be displayed on the user’s device as an alternative vehicle. This is substantially the same as modifying the dispatch plan.). Karlsson et al. discloses in column 15 lines 25 to 34 that a corresponding number of pilot cars are requested to meet up at the check-out point, wherein each pilot car guides a single autonomous truck to its respective destination within the second geographic region. This is the region where the autonomous truck can’t drive autonomously. The check-out point is a point within this region where the pilot car and the truck initiate the procedures leading to the truck following the pilot car to its intended destination (It is understood that the pilot vehicles need to be dispatched to the point where it is predicted that the inoperable vehicle does not satisfy the operational design domain. Furthermore, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses that a pilot vehicle may pass by a vehicle that does not satisfy the ODD in order for that vehicle to follow the pilot vehicle to a region where it does satisfy the ODD. We have established that Heyl discloses above segment of the claim as discussed previously in detail in the section related to U.S.C. 103 rejection regarding claim 2 of this office action. Passing by a vehicle that does not satisfy the ODD is substantially the same as passing through a point where the vehicle does not meet the ODD as disclosed in above segment of claim 3. Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses that the system can predict that a vehicle may not satisfy the ODD (Paragraph (53) of Watanabe et al.). Additionally, Watanabe et al. discloses that any of the vehicles can be autonomous vehicles (Paragraph (6)). It is also understood that the pilot vehicle is among the group of vehicles that can be used within the MaaS system. Above disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in above segment of claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this invention to modify the teaching of Watanabe et al., as modified, in view of Karlsson et al. to disclose a system wherein a vehicle, operating as part of a MaaS system, is dispatched such that it passes through a point where it is predicted that the inoperable vehicle does not satisfy the operational design domain in order to yield the predictable result of improving the overall efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe et al. as modified, discloses the system according to claim 3, wherein each of the one or more pilot vehicles is an autonomous vehicle satisfying the operational design domain in the dispatch plan after modifying or a vehicle driven by a driver (Karlsson et al. discloses in column 2 line 25 that the pilot vehicle may be an autonomous vehicle. Column 2 line 20 to 24 discloses that the pilot vehicle may be a vehicle with a human driver. It is understood that the pilot vehicle qualifies as a vehicle that satisfies the operational design domain in the region where the truck can’t drive autonomously, and, therefore, the truck can follow the pilot car to its destination. Above disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in claim 4.).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe et al. disclose the method according to claim 7, wherein each of the one or more autonomous vehicles is configured to: make a stop when the operational design domain is not satisfied (Watanabe et al. discloses in paragraph (52) that when the dispatched vehicle can’t continue the autonomous driving to the destination during the autonomous driving of the dispatched vehicle on which the user is boarded, the search unit searches for a first alternative moving object to which the user can transfer to. The reason for attempting to identify an alternative vehicle is that the first vehicle is no longer able to travel autonomously for reasons such as prediction of rain or construction in the path to the destination or fallen objects as disclosed in paragraph (53). Therefore, the operational design domain is not satisfied for the first vehicle. It is understood that the vehicle must stop first before above mentioned transfer can take place. This is substantially the same as what is disclosed in above segment of claim 8.).
Watanabe et al. does not disclose traveling following a preceding vehicle, the preceding vehicle being any one of the plurality of MaaS vehicles passing by the each of the one or more autonomous vehicles after the stop; and resume the autonomous driving when the operational design domain is satisfied while traveling following the preceding vehicle (Heyl discloses in paragraph (5) that the vehicle that does not meet the ODD may stop. Fig. 7 discloses two vehicles in the vicinity of above mentioned vehicle. One of these vehicles 715 is located in the adjacent lane slightly behind above vehicle. Paragraph (31) discloses that a message goes to both vehicles asking for those vehicles to act as a pilot that the vehicle can follow while in a region where it is deemed in-operable. Same paragraph discloses that a vehicle may decline this request. Therefore, it is possible that the vehicle in the front of the in-operable vehicle may decline above mentioned request while the vehicle 715, which is slightly behind the subject vehicle, may accept the request. If vehicle 715 accepts this request then it must pass the subject vehicle first in order to be able to act as a pilot vehicle leading from the front. Paragraph (32) discloses that a pilot vehicle may position itself in front of the autonomous vehicle. Paragraph (6) also discloses that the vehicle follows the pilot vehicle until it reenters a region where it satisfies the ODD. These disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in above segment of claim 8 of instant application.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this invention to modify the teaching of Watanabe et al., as modified, in view of Heyl to disclose a system wherein an autonomous vehicle that does not satisfy the ODD stops, waits for a pilot vehicle to pass by, and follow that pilot vehicle in to a region where is satisfies the ODD to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the system.
Watanabe et al, as modified, does not disclose the method, wherein the modifying the dispatch plan includes modifying the dispatch plan to let one or more pilot vehicles, as the preceding vehicle, pass through a point where it is predicted that the inoperable vehicle does not satisfy the operational design domain, the one or more pilot vehicles being selected among the plurality of MaaS vehicles.
Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses that the dispatch plan can be modified (Watanabe et al. discloses in paragraph 52 that the system searches for an alternative vehicle for the user. The reason for attempting to identify an alternative vehicle is that the first vehicle is no longer able to travel autonomously for reasons such as prediction of rain or construction in the path to the destination or fallen objects as disclosed in paragraph (53). Paragraph (57) discloses that the vehicle dispatch processing unit generates a proposal to be displayed on the user’s device as an alternative vehicle. This is substantially the same as modifying the dispatch plan.). Karlsson et al. discloses in column 15 lines 25 to 34 that a corresponding number of pilot cars are requested to meet up at the check-out point, wherein each pilot car guides a single autonomous truck to its respective destination within the second geographic region. This is the region where the autonomous truck can’t drive autonomously. The check-out point is a point within this region where the pilot car and the truck initiate the procedures leading to the truck following the pilot car to its intended destination (It is understood that the pilot vehicles need to be dispatched to the point where it is predicted that the inoperable vehicle does not satisfy the operational design domain. Furthermore, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses that a pilot vehicle may pass by a vehicle that does not satisfy the ODD in order for that vehicle to follow the pilot vehicle to a region where it does satisfy the ODD. We have established that Heyl discloses above segment of the claim as discussed previously in detail in the section related to U.S.C. 103 rejection regarding claim 2 of this office action. Passing by a vehicle that does not satisfy the ODD is substantially the same as passing through a point where the vehicle does not meet the ODD as disclosed in above segment of claim 3. Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses that the system can predict that a vehicle may not satisfy the ODD (Paragraph (53) of Watanabe et al.). Additionally, Watanabe et al. discloses that any of the vehicles can be autonomous vehicles (Paragraph (6)). It is also understood that the pilot vehicle is among the group of vehicles that can be used within the MaaS system. Above disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in above segment of claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this invention to modify the teaching of Watanabe et al., as modified, in view of Karlsson et al. to disclose a system wherein a vehicle, operating as part of a MaaS system, is dispatched such that it passes through a point where it is predicted that the inoperable vehicle does not satisfy the operational design domain in order to yield the predictable result of improving the overall efficiency of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ramin Monajemy whose telephone number is (571) 272-2298. The examiner can normally be reached between 9AM - 5:00PM PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at (571) 270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Application/Control Number: 18/168,829 Page 47 Art Unit: 3665
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.
/R.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3665C
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665