DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 05 August 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9 & 10 have been amended.
Claims 11 & 12 have been added.
Claims 2 & 8 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-7 & 9-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Examiner respectfully rescinds the claim objection to claim 1 & 5 in view of the claimed amendments.
The Examiner respectfully rescinds the drawing objection in view of the replacement drawings.
The Examiner respectfully rescinds the objection to the specification in view of the amendment.
The Examiner respectfully rescinds the rejection to claims 1, 5, 7 & 9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the claimed amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/2/2023 has been received and considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0108539 A1), in view of Watanabe in view of Heyl (US 2021/0109528 A1) in further view of Nagura et al. US 2023/0242447 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe et al. discloses a system comprising: plurality of mobility-as-service (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.). Furthermore, 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.).
Watanabe et al. disclose 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.
Watanabe does not disclose the following, however Heyl does teach make a stop when the operational design domain is not satisfied (Heyl teaches in paragraph (37) When the autonomous vehicle 105 is outside of its ODD, the first electronic processor 200 may be configured to perform one or more actions to warn vehicles surrounding the autonomous vehicle 105 that the autonomous vehicle 105 may behave in an unusual manner (for example, unexpectedly slowing or stopping)) 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.
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. & Heyl does not teach the following, however Nagura et al. does teach the operational design domain including a road shape at which the autonomous driving in accordance with the dispatch plan can be continued; in (Nagura et al. paragraph (58) teaches the management information 25B may include information related to the operational design domain (ODD) of the autonomous driving vehicle. Specifically, as an example, a travel road condition, a road shape, a weather, a road surface state, traffic state and the like.)
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 Nagura to disclose the operational design domain including a road shape to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the system such that the management information includes an environmental state expressed as the information related to an operational design domain of the remote support to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the system.
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. 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. See Paragraph 52, paragraph (53) & Paragraph (57)).
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 being dispatched with an autonomous vehicle satisfying the operational design domain in the dispatch plan or a vehicle driven by a driver (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.).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 11, Watanabe et al. as modified, discloses the system according to claim 1. Watanabe does not disclose the following, however Heyl does teach the system according to claim 1, wherein: the vehicle information includes a type of the vehicle, specifications, a position of the vehicle, a state of vehicle body, a traveling state of the vehicle, a surrounding environment, (Heyl paragraph (20) discloses For example, the autonomous vehicle 105 and the surrounding vehicle 110 may be automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, buses, a semi-tractors, a combination of the foregoing, or the like. Paragraph (26) discloses he ODD detection software 215 may also include vision recognition algorithms configured to detect types of surrounding environments that are outside of the ODD of the autonomous vehicle 105.” Paragraph (35) discloses “The second electronic processor 500 may determine the movement and position of the autonomous vehicle 105 using data received from the environment detection system 125 of the autonomous vehicle 105, data received from an environment detection system (not illustrated) of the surrounding vehicle 110, or both.” state of mounted sensors of the vehicle, and a mounting position of the sensors of the vehicle, Paragraph (28) discloses For example, the camera 405, or components thereof, may be externally mounted to a portion of the autonomous vehicle 105 (such as on a side mirror or a trunk door). Alternatively the camera 405, or components thereof, may be internally mounted within the autonomous vehicle 105 (for example, positioned by the rearview mirror. The sensors of the environment detection system 125 are configured to receive signals indicative of the vehicle's distance from and position relative to, elements in the autonomous vehicle's surrounding environment as the autonomous vehicle 105 moves from one point to another.” and
the service information includes a dispatch traveling route defined by the dispatch plan and a passing time at each point of the dispatch traveling route (Heyl paragraph (35) discloses “The request for the leading vehicle may be removed from display on the electronic road sign when the electronic road sign receives an electronic message from the leading vehicle or the autonomous vehicle 105 that the autonomous vehicle 105 is being led or after a predetermined amount of time has elapsed. In some embodiments, the first electronic processor 200 sends an electronic message to an electronic road sign requesting the road sign display an electronic message warning surrounding vehicles that the autonomous vehicle 105 is outside of its ODD and may behave in an unusual manner. In some embodiments, the warning is removed from the road sign after a predetermined amount of time has elapsed.).
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.
Claims 3 & 4 are being rejected under 35 U.C.S. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. in view of Heyl in view of Nagura et al. and in further view of Karlsson et al. (US10543841B2)
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.
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.).
Claims 7, 9 & 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 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.).
Watanabe et al. disclose 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. wherein the modifying the dispatch plan includes modifying the dispatch plan (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.).
Watanabe does not disclose the following, however Heyl does teach make a stop when the operational design domain is not satisfied (Heyl teaches in paragraph (37) When the autonomous vehicle 105 is outside of its ODD, the first electronic processor 200 may be configured to perform one or more actions to warn vehicles surrounding the autonomous vehicle 105 that the autonomous vehicle 105 may behave in an unusual manner (for example, unexpectedly slowing or stopping)) 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)
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. (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).
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 yields the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the system.
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 (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 10, Watanabe et al. disclose the method according to claim 7, 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 being dispatched with an autonomous vehicle satisfying the operational design domain in the dispatch plan or a vehicle driven by a driver. (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.).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al., in view of Heyl in view of Nagura et al. and in further view of Kaji et al. US 2019/0202473 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe et al. as modified, discloses the system according to claim 1. Watanabe does not disclose the following, however Kaji does teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further caused to execute predicting, as the prediction of dispatch service environment, an occurrence of a situation in which the operational design domain is not satisfied including predicting a point where shadows occur from information of buildings in the dispatch service area and a direction of the sun at each hour acquired (Kaji paragraph (69) discloses “The surrounding status predicting unit 134 predicts that the sun SN is present in front of the subject vehicle M in a case in which a left turn is made at the intersection on the basis of the surrounding weather, an advancement direction with respect to the road R2, date and time information at which the subject vehicle runs on the road R2, and the like. The surrounding status predicting unit 134 may analyze an image captured by the camera 10 and predict the presence of the sun SN in the direction of the road R2 before the left turn at the intersection on the basis of positions and directions of the shadows of surrounding objects, a distribution of brightness inside the image area, and the like acquired as a result of the analysis.”
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 Kaji to disclose a system predicting unit that predicts the sun’s presence in front of the subject vehicle to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the system such that reducing glare improves safety.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KITO R ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, James Trammell can be reached at (571) 272-6712. 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.
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights