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 . This office action is in response to an amendment filed on 10/7/25. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1 and 7 are amended. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, One rejection regarding lack of antecedent basis has been removed in regards to “…the actual time of driving…”, but the narrative form rejection in claim 1 remains as no transitional phrase of (i.e. comprising, consisting, etc.) has been included after the preamble. New antecedent basis issues regarding claim 1 and claim 7 are explained below in detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and Claim 7 recites the limitation "…the fixed actual driving route…" in Page 1 and Page 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected as it is written in narrative form. The examiner is not sure where the preamble and the body of the claim are. There are no transitional phrases (i.e. comprising, consisting, etc.) that distinguish the preamble from the body of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 are rejected due to each being virtue dependent on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kume et al. (US20240308537A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Kume teaches An instruction device (Pg. 15 – [0054] – “The automatic driving ECU 10 may appropriately generate this route in the same manner as in a route search of the navigation function” (equates to An instruction device as the ecu is used to instruction the vehicle with updated travel plans. )) configured to instruct an autonomous driving vehicle of a behavior plan including at least a driving route, (Pg. 15 – [0054] – “As the traveling plan, a long/intermediate-term traveling plan and a short-term traveling plan are generated. In the long/intermediate-term traveling plan, a route for directing the host vehicle to a set destination is generated” (equates to configured to instruct an autonomous driving vehicle of a behavior plan including at least a driving route as the quote shows a traveling plan being generated corresponding to a route to be taken by the vehicle)) wherein the instruction device determines a dangerous zone included in a driving region (Pg. 18 – [0083] – “First, in Step Sl, when an obstacle is identified by the obstacle identification unit 111 (YES in Sl), the flow moves to Step S2. Meanwhile, when no obstacle is identified by the obstacle identification unit 111 (NO in Sl), the flow moves to Step S12. In Step S2, the avoidance measure identification unit 131 identifies the avoidance route” (equates to wherein the instruction device determines a dangerous zone included in a driving region as the quote shows the obstacle being identified and leads to a generation of an avoidance route and thus a dangerous zone in the driving region is established based on the obstacle detected. )) based on actual driving data obtained at a time of actual driving, (Pg. 14 – [0045] – “The driving environment recognition unit 101 recognizes a driving environment of the host vehicle from the host vehicle position acquired from the locator 12, the map data acquired from the map DB 13, and the sensing information acquired from the peripheral monitoring sensor 15. The driving environment recognition unit 101 corresponds to a driving environment identification unit. By way of example, the driving environment recognition unit 101 uses these information items to recognize a position, a shape, and a movement state of an object around the host vehicle and generate a virtual space that reproduces a real driving environment.” (equates to based on actual driving data obtained at a time of actual driving, as the quote shows the recognition unit being able to detect what is happening around the host vehicle in real time.)) when creating the driving route, the instruction device fixes a driving route in the dangerous zone to an actual driving route created based on the actual driving data, (Pg. 15 – [0054] – “As the traveling plan, a long/intermediate-term traveling plan and a short-term traveling plan are generated. In the long/intermediate-term traveling plan, a route for directing the host vehicle to a set destination is generated. This route is a route including a plurality of links. The automatic driving ECU 10 may appropriately generate this route in the same manner as in a route search of the navigation function” & See Also Pg. 15 – [0059] – “When an obstacle is identified by the obstacle identification unit 111, the avoidance measure identification unit 131 identifies a measure (hereinafter referred to as the avoidance measure) to allow the host vehicle to avoid the obstacle” (equates to when creating the driving route, the instruction device fixes a driving route in the dangerous zone to an actual driving route created based on the actual driving data as the first quote shows the setting of a long term driving plan wherein the vehicle executes based on route search and the second quote shows how while the vehicle is travelling along the path the actual driving data collected may include a detected obstacle and thus a dangerous zone was include in the actual driving route and the dangerous zone was collected based on actual driving data.) ) sets a driving route in a zone other than the dangerous zone as a predetermined driving route, (Pg. 15 – [0059] – “When an obstacle is identified by the obstacle identification unit 111, the avoidance measure identification unit 131 identifies a route (hereinafter referred to as the avoidance route) corresponding to the scheduled traveling path for the host vehicle that allows the obstacle to be avoided as the avoidance measure” & See Also Pg. 18 – [0084] – “In Step S4, the behavior determination unit 103 generates the scheduled traveling path corresponding to the avoidance route identified in S2 as the short-term traveling plan. Subsequently, the control execution unit 104 causes the host vehicle to automatically travel along the scheduled traveling path. In other words, by the driving in a region within the traffic regulations, the obstacle identified in Sl is avoided.” (equates to sets a driving route in a zone other than the dangerous zone as a predetermined driving route as the first quote shows the setting of a driving route that lies outside of the detected obstacle and thus outside of a zone that would cause harm to the host vehicle and the second quote showing that the avoidance route is sent to the vehicle to control the vehicle to travel along it and thus avoid the deemed dangerous zone.) ) and instructs the autonomous driving vehicle to follow a driving route configured by connecting the fixed actual driving route and the predetermined driving route so that they are continuous (Pg. 18 – [0084] – “In Step S4, the behavior determination unit 103 generates the scheduled traveling path corresponding to the avoidance route identified in S2 as the short-term traveling plan. Subsequently, the control execution unit 104 causes the host vehicle to automatically travel along the scheduled traveling path. In other words, by the driving in a region within the traffic regulations, the obstacle identified in Sl is avoided.” & see also Pg. 15 – [0054 & 0055] – “As the traveling plan, a long/intermediate-term traveling plan and a short-term traveling plan are generated. In the long/intermediate-term traveling plan, a route for directing the host vehicle to a set destination is generated. This route is a route including a plurality of links. The automatic driving ECU 10 may appropriately generate this route in the same manner as in a route search of the navigation function. This route search may appropriately be performed on the basis of cost calculation using, e.g., a Dijkstra method. [0055] In the short-term traveling plan, the behavior determination unit 103 uses a generated virtual space around the host vehicle to generate a scheduled traveling path for implementing traveling according to the long/intermediate term traveling plan. Specifically, the behavior determination unit 103 determines execution of steering for a lane change, acceleration/deceleration for speed adjustment, steering for avoiding an obstacle, braking, or the like.” (equates to and instructs the autonomous driving vehicle to follow a driving route configured by connecting the fixed actual driving route and the predetermined driving route so that they are continuous as the first quote shows the short term driving plan being set based on the avoidance route and thus being equivalent to the actual driving route and the second quote showing the short term driving route being one of links of the long term driving plan and thus the long term driving plan is the predetermined path wherein the inclusion of the avoidance route to the short term plan allows for the continuous travelling along the predetermined path and thus still avoids the marked dangerous zone while reaching the desired destination.))
Regarding Claim 7 Kume teaches A method of creating a driving route for an autonomous driving vehicle, (Pg. 10 – [0002] – “The present disclosure relates to a vehicle control device and vehicle control method” & See Also Pg. 15 – [0054] – “route for directing the host vehicle to a set destination is generated” & See Also Pg. 10 – [0004] – “A vehicle control device that performs automatic driving” (equates to A method of creating a driving route for an autonomous driving vehicle, as the first quote shows the art being a method, second showing the route generation capabilities of the art, and third quote showing the vehicle being an autonomous vehicle. )) the method comprising: an actual driving step of causing the autonomous driving vehicle to drive in a driving region and acquiring actual driving data obtained at a time of actual driving; (Pg. 14 – [0048] – “The driving environment recognition unit 101 may also perform determination of an automatic driving area (hereinafter referred to as the AD area) of the traveling region of the host vehicle” & See Also Pg. 15 – [0054] – “determines a traveling plan for traveling the host vehicle on the basis of a result of recognition of a driving environment by the driving environment recognition unit 101.” (equates to an actual driving step of causing the autonomous driving vehicle to drive in a driving region and acquiring actual driving data obtained at a time of actual driving; as the environmental recognition unit of this art can determine an autonomous driving region where the vehicle can travel autonomously and then a route can be generated for the vehicle to travel based on the environmental recognition unit’s determination. And t specifically the last quote shows the driving environment being recognize or sensed and thus the driving region can be detected at the time of driving. )) a dangerous zone determining step of determining, a dangerous zone included in the driving region; by collating the actual driving data with a threshold(Pg. 15 – [0059] – “he avoidance measure identification unit 131 identifies a measure (hereinafter referred to as the avoidance measure) to allow the host vehicle to avoid the obstacle. When an obstacle is identified by the obstacle identification unit 111, the avoidance measure identification unit 131 identifies a route (hereinafter referred to as the avoidance route) corresponding to the scheduled traveling path for the host vehicle that allows the obstacle to be avoided as the avoidance measure.” & See Also Pg. 15 – [0054] – “determines a traveling plan for traveling the host vehicle on the basis of a result of recognition of a driving environment by the driving environment recognition unit 101.” & See Also Pg. 14 – [0045] – “The driving environment recognition unit 101 recognizes a driving environment of the host vehicle from the host vehicle position acquired from the locator 12” & See Also Pg. 19 – [0098] – “identifies whether or not an obstacle is present within a predetermined range from a stop line… The predetermined range may optionally be settable. The predetermined range may appropriately be a range in which the obstacle described above presumably has a low possibility of preventing the host vehicle from passing…” (equates to a dangerous zone determining step of determining, a dangerous zone included in the driving region; by collating the actual driving data with a threshold as the first quote shows an avoidance measure identification unit that can identify obstacle or dangerous areas for the vehicle to travel within. It can perform this avoidance measure by way of the traveling path which is generated based on the real time information gathered from the environmental recognition unit of the second and third quotes where the environmental recognition unit can get real time driving data as seen from the last quote. The last quote specifically showing the obstacle detection and thus a dangerous zone being identified based on a threshold or a predetermined range of obstacle detection as set out of the environmental recognition unit of the host vehicle. )) the driving route creating step including fixing a driving route in the dangerous zone to an actual driving route created based on the actual driving data, (Pg. 15 – [0054] – “As the traveling plan, a long/intermediate-term traveling plan and a short-term traveling plan are generated. In the long/intermediate-term traveling plan, a route for directing the host vehicle to a set destination is generated. This route is a route including a plurality of links. The automatic driving ECU 10 may appropriately generate this route in the same manner as in a route search of the navigation function” & See Also Pg. 15 – [0059] – “When an obstacle is identified by the obstacle identification unit 111, the avoidance measure identification unit 131 identifies a measure (hereinafter referred to as the avoidance measure) to allow the host vehicle to avoid the obstacle” (equates to when creating the driving route, the instruction device fixes a driving route in the dangerous zone to an actual driving route created based on the actual driving data as the first quote shows the setting of a long term driving plan wherein the vehicle executes based on route search and the second quote shows how while the vehicle is travelling along the path the actual driving data collected may include a detected obstacle and thus a dangerous zone was include in the actual driving route and the dangerous zone was collected based on actual driving data.) ) setting a driving route in a zone other than the dangerous zone as a predetermined driving route, Pg. 15 – [0059] – “When an obstacle is identified by the obstacle identification unit 111, the avoidance measure identification unit 131 identifies a route (hereinafter referred to as the avoidance route) corresponding to the scheduled traveling path for the host vehicle that allows the obstacle to be avoided as the avoidance measure” & See Also Pg. 18 – [0084] – “In Step S4, the behavior determination unit 103 generates the scheduled traveling path corresponding to the avoidance route identified in S2 as the short-term traveling plan. Subsequently, the control execution unit 104 causes the host vehicle to automatically travel along the scheduled traveling path. In other words, by the driving in a region within the traffic regulations, the obstacle identified in Sl is avoided.” (equates to sets a driving route in a zone other than the dangerous zone as a predetermined driving route as the first quote shows the setting of a driving route that lies outside of the detected obstacle and thus outside of a zone that would cause harm to the host vehicle and the second quote showing that the avoidance route is sent to the vehicle to control the vehicle to travel along it and thus avoid the deemed dangerous zone.) ) and connecting the fixed actual driving route and the predetermined driving route so that they are continuous(Pg. 18 – [0084] – “In Step S4, the behavior determination unit 103 generates the scheduled traveling path corresponding to the avoidance route identified in S2 as the short-term traveling plan. Subsequently, the control execution unit 104 causes the host vehicle to automatically travel along the scheduled traveling path. In other words, by the driving in a region within the traffic regulations, the obstacle identified in Sl is avoided.” & see also Pg. 15 – [0054 & 0055] – “As the traveling plan, a long/intermediate-term traveling plan and a short-term traveling plan are generated. In the long/intermediate-term traveling plan, a route for directing the host vehicle to a set destination is generated. This route is a route including a plurality of links. The automatic driving ECU 10 may appropriately generate this route in the same manner as in a route search of the navigation function. This route search may appropriately be performed on the basis of cost calculation using, e.g., a Dijkstra method. [0055] In the short-term traveling plan, the behavior determination unit 103 uses a generated virtual space around the host vehicle to generate a scheduled traveling path for implementing traveling according to the long/intermediate term traveling plan. Specifically, the behavior determination unit 103 determines execution of steering for a lane change, acceleration/deceleration for speed adjustment, steering for avoiding an obstacle, braking, or the like.” (equates to and instructs the autonomous driving vehicle to follow a driving route configured by connecting the fixed actual driving route and the predetermined driving route so that they are continuous as the first quote shows the short term driving plan being set based on the avoidance route and thus being equivalent to the actual driving route and the second quote showing the short term driving route being one of links of the long term driving plan and thus the long term driving plan is the predetermined path wherein the inclusion of the avoidance route to the short term plan allows for the continuous travelling along the predetermined path and thus still avoids the marked dangerous zone while reaching the desired destination.))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume in view of Zhixin (CN113928340A) .
Regarding Claim 2 Kume teaches The instruction device according to claim 1, wherein the actual driving route is set at a position, (Pg. 15- [0054] – “determines a traveling plan for traveling the host vehicle on the basis of a result of recognition of a driving environment by the driving environment recognition unit 101.” & See Also Pg. 14 – [0045] – “The driving environment recognition unit 101 recognizes a driving environment of the host vehicle from the host vehicle position acquired from the locator 12” & See Also Pg. 12 – [0031] – “The locator 12 includes a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) receiver and an inertial sensor. The GNSS receiver receives positioning signals from a plurality of positioning satellites” (equates to wherein the actual driving route is set at a position as the quotes show a traveling plan based on an environment recognition unit that utilizes positioning from the locator to give an actual position for the formulation of the driving route.))
Yet Kume fails to teach where the actual driving data exceeds a threshold, on the driving route.
Zhixin teaches where the actual driving data exceeds a threshold, on the driving route. (Pg. 1 – [11 , 12, 13] – “Determine the target expansion detection frame corresponding to each target obstacle information; According to each target expansion detection frame, the current position information of the target vehicle, and the lane boundary line information of the road to which the target vehicle belongs, determine at least one obstacle-avoiding driving path to be used corresponding to the target vehicle; The target obstacle avoidance travel path is determined according to the relative position information between each discrete point in each obstacle avoidance travel route to be used and each target expansion detection frame.” & See Also Pg. 10 – [62] – “Exemplarily, in practical applications, by judging whether the distance between each discrete point in the obstacle avoidance driving route to be used and each vertex of each target expansion detection frame is greater than a certain preset threshold, in order to enable the target vehicle to avoid the obstacle safely. The width of the target vehicle itself can be set as the threshold value, and the distance between each discrete point in the obstacle avoidance driving route to be used and each vertex of each target expansion detection frame can be set to be larger than the target vehicle's own width condition. As the target obstacle avoidance driving path” (equates to where the actual driving data exceeds a threshold, on the driving route as the first quote shows the detection of the obstacle in the path to be discretized into “target expansion detection frames” wherein the second quote shows the vehicle width being used as a threshold when exceeding it can the vehicle drive safely past the detected obstacle.) ). It would have been an advantageous addition to the device disclosed by Kume to include where the actual driving data exceeds a threshold, on the driving route as this limitation allows for a threshold distance around an obstacle to be provided and allows for a safe passage an easy route generation to be made based on a threshold distance away from a detected dangerous zone.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include where the actual driving data exceeds a threshold, on the driving route as having a threshold distance away from an obstacle allows for easy path generation to take place while always avoiding an obstacle based on the threshold utilized.
Regarding Claim 4 Kume-Zhixin teaches (Kume discloses the following limitations:) The instruction device according to claim 2, wherein the actual driving data is at least data of a yaw angular velocity or an acceleration in an up-down direction of the autonomous driving vehicle. (Pg. 12 – [0031] – “The locator 12 includes a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) receiver and an inertial sensor. The GNSS receiver receives positioning signals from a plurality of positioning satellites. The inertial sensor includes, e.g., a gyro sensor and an acceleration sensor.” & See Also Pg. 14 – [0045] – “The driving environment recognition unit 101 recognizes a driving environment of the host vehicle from the host vehicle position acquired from the locator 12, the map data acquired from the map DB 13, and the sensing information acquired from the peripheral monitoring sensor 15. The driving environment recognition unit 101 corresponds to a driving environment identification unit. By way of example, the driving environment recognition unit 101 uses these information items to recognize a position, a shape, and a movement state of an object around the host vehicle and generate a virtual space that reproduces a real driving environment.” (equates to wherein the actual driving data is at least data of a yaw angular velocity or an acceleration in an up-down direction of the autonomous driving vehicle as the environmental recognition unit of this art is able to acquire real time data of the vehicle’s surroundings and the recognition unit includes an inertial sensor with both acceleration sensors and gyroscopes where the gyroscope can acquire the yaw angular velocity and the acceleration sensors can get the up and down acceleration of the vehicle. ))
Regarding Claim 5 Kume-Zhixin teaches (Kume discloses the following limitations:) The instruction device according to claim 2, wherein the behavior plan includes a driving condition for the autonomous driving vehicle, (Pg. 13 – [0036] – “The vehicle control ECU 16 is an electronic control device that controls driving of the host vehicle. As the driving control, acceleration/deceleration control” (equates to wherein the behavior plan includes a driving condition for the autonomous driving vehicle as the quote shows the driving being control and thus a behavior plan is formed wherein the acceleration is controlled within the driving operation which is equivalent a driving condition.)) and
Yet Kume fails to teach sets a driving condition based on the actual driving data at the position where the actual driving data exceeds the threshold.
Zhixin teaches sets a driving condition based on the actual driving data at the position where the actual driving data exceeds the threshold. (Pg. 14 – [79] – “Further, according to conditions such as the obstacle speed being less than a certain set threshold, the obstacle position is in front of the target vehicle, or the obstacle is within the preset area associated with the target vehicle, etc., the stationary obstacles around the driving path of the target vehicle are screened… set the maximum speed limit of the target vehicle when avoiding obstacles. Generally, in It can be set to 10m/s in urban road driving” & See Also Pg. 10 – [62] – “The width of the target vehicle itself can be set as the threshold value, and the distance between each discrete point in the obstacle avoidance driving route to be used and each vertex of each target expansion detection frame can be set to be larger than the target vehicle's own width condition. As the target obstacle avoidance driving path” (equates to sets a driving condition based on the actual driving data at the position where the actual driving data exceeds the threshold as the first quote shows the vehicle encounter with the obstacle within a given area being linked to setting a speed of the vehicle for the travel path and thus a driving condition is based on actual driving data, wherein the second quote shows the travel path being based on the threshold distance between the vehicle and obstacle wherein the distance exceeds the threshold and travel path is given accordingly. )) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Kume to include sets a driving condition based on the actual driving data at the position where the actual driving data exceeds the threshold as this limitation allows for setting a vehicle parameter when it is detected that a vehicle is outside the threshold range of colliding with an obstacle.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include sets a driving condition based on the actual driving data at the position where the actual driving data exceeds the threshold as this limitations allows for more control of setting a vehicle parameter while still avoiding detected obstacles.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume-Zhixin and in further view of Taveria (US 10,717,435 B2).
Regarding Claim 3 Kume-Zhixin teaches The instruction device according to claim 2, as previously mapped above.
Yet Kume-Zhixin fails to disclose wherein a position where the actual driving data is equal to or less than the threshold is provided such that the actual driving route is changeable.
Taveira discloses wherein a position where the actual driving data is equal to or less than the threshold is provided such that the actual driving route is changeable. (Pg. 11 – Col. 4 – lines 27-31 – “…"proximity threshold" is used herein to refer to a minimum distance between an object and a robotic vehicle that a collision avoidance system will permit before controlling the robotic vehicle to stop or change a direction of travel away from the object.” (equates to wherein a position where the actual driving data is equal to or less than the threshold is provided such that the actual driving route is changeable as the art disclosed a proximity threshold distance in which the vehicle can go up until the path is then changed. Therefor if the vehicle is equal to or less than the threshold the path of the vehicle be changed to avoid collision.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Kume-Zhixin to include wherein a position where the actual driving data is equal to or less than the threshold is provided such that the actual driving route is changeable as this limitation gives the way for the vehicle to automatically change paths or have a new path generated based on being too close to an obstacle.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein a position where the actual driving data is equal to or less than the threshold is provided such that the actual driving route is changeable as this limitation allows for a simple way to avoid obstacles while being within a threshold distance rather than only excluding the vehicle from entering if they were to breach a threshold distance from an obstacle.
Regarding Claim 6 Kume teaches A behavior plan instruction system comprising the instruction device (Pg. 13 – [0044] – “Subsequently, using FIG. 2, a description will be given of a schematic configuration of the automatic driving ECU 10. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the automatic driving ECU 10 includes a driving environment recognition unit 101, a HCU communication unit 102, a behavior determination unit 103, a control execution unit 104, and a vehicle exterior-notification instruction unit 105”) according to claim 1 and the autonomous driving vehicle, (Pg. 10 – [0004] – “A vehicle control device that performs automatic driving”)
Yet Kume fails to teach wherein the instruction device is provided in a server, the autonomous driving vehicle transmits the actual driving data to the server, and the autonomous driving vehicle receives the behavior plan from the server.
Zhixin teaches wherein the instruction device is provided in a server (Pg. 19 – [121] – “Computer program code for carrying out the operations of embodiments of the present invention may be written in one or more programming languages…The program code may execute entirely on the…remote computer or server ” & See Also Pg. 2 – [18] – “The target obstacle avoidance travel path determination module is used for determining the target obstacle avoidance travel path according to the relative position information between each discrete point in each obstacle avoidance travel route to be used” (equates to wherein the instruction device is provided in a server as the second quote shows an obstacle avoidance route generation system thus equivalent to the instruction device. Wherein the first quote shows any embodiment of the art can be ran on a remote server. ))
Yet both Kume-Zhixin fails to teach the autonomous driving vehicle transmits the actual driving data to the server and the autonomous driving vehicle receives the behavior plan from the server
Taveria teaches the autonomous driving vehicle transmits the actual driving data to the server, (Pg. 13 – Col.8 – lines 30-34 – “Thus, the aerial robotic vehicle 200 may navigate using a combination of navigation techniques, including dead-reckoning, camera-based recognition of the land features below and around the aerial robotic vehicle 200 (e.g., recognizing a road, landmarks, highway signage, etc.),” & See Also Pg. 13 – Col. 7 – lines 46 – 53 –“ using the processor 220, the one or more communication components 232, and an antenna may be configured to conduct wireless communications with a variety of remote computing devices, examples of which include the base station or cell tower 50 (e.g., base station 20), a beacon, server, a smartphone, a tablet, or another computing device with which the aerial robotic vehicle 200 may communicate.” & See Also Fig. 2 – Pg. 5 (equates to the autonomous driving vehicle transmits the actual driving data to the server as the first quote shows the robot ability to acquire driving data include position of the vehicle and the second quote shows the communication link between the server and the robot wherein the robot can update the position or driving data of itself by way of communication with the server.)) and the autonomous driving vehicle receives the behavior plan from the server. (Pg. 13 – Col. 7 – lines 46 – 53 –“ using the processor 220, the one or more communication components 232, and an antenna may be configured to conduct wireless communications with a variety of remote computing devices, examples of which include the base station or cell tower 50 (e.g., base station 20), a beacon, server, a smartphone, a tablet, or another computing device with which the aerial robotic vehicle 200 may communicate.” & See Also Fig. 2 – Pg. 5 & See Also Pg. 12 – Col. 6 – lines 50-54 – “The processor 220 and memory 222 may be configured as or be included within a system-on-chip (SoC) 215 along with additional elements such as (but not limited to) a communication interface 224, one or more input units 226,” & See Also Pg. 13 – Col. 8 – lines 40-48 – “input units 226 for receiving control instructions, data from human operators or automated/pre-programmed controls, and/or for collecting data indicating various conditions relevant to the aerial robotic vehicle 200. For example, the input units 226 may receive input from one or more of etc. 45 various components, such as camera(s) or other imaging sensors, detection and ranging sensors (e.g., radar, sonar, lidar, etc.), microphone(s), position information functionalities (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS” (equates to the autonomous driving vehicle receives the behavior plan from the server.as the vehicle is seen to be in contact with the remote server and can communicate with the server by taking in input commands such as a behavior plan that would include control instruction as seen from the last quote. )) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Kume-Zhixin to include the autonomous driving vehicle transmits the actual driving data to the server and the autonomous driving vehicle receives the behavior plan from the server as these limitations allow for easy communication between the vehicle and a remote server ensuring this device can have a configuration that includes off board equipment and allows for more computing power at an offsite location.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the autonomous driving vehicle transmits the actual driving data to the server and the autonomous driving vehicle receives the behavior plan from the server as the inclusion of these limitations allows for offsite processing to be done and allows for a smaller device structure to be utilized onboard the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-7 applicant’s amendments to the claim changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 2 , “Claims 1-7 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant amends claim 1 to recite the specific operations of the instruction device: “the instruction device determines a dangerous sone included in a driving region” and “when creating the driving route, the instruction device fixes a driving route in the dangerous sone (6 an actual driving route created based on the actual driving data, sets a driving route in a lane other than the dangerous zone as a predetermined driving route, and instructs the autonomous driving vehicle to follow a driving route configured oy connecting the fixed actual driving route and the predetermined driving route xo that they are continuous”. Based on the claimed mention of claim |, a driving route in a dangerous zone is fixed to an actual driving route, and a driving route outside the dangerous zone is set as a predetermined driving route. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an invention which does not constitute a mental process. Similarly, Applicant amends claim 7 to recite the specific operations of the steps in the claimed method: “an actual driving step of causing the autonomous driving vehicle ta drive in a driving region and acquiring actual driving data obtained at a time of actual driving”, “a dangerous zone determining step of determining, a dangerous sone included in the driving region by collating the actual driving data with a threshold”, and “the driving route creating step including fixing a driving rode in the dangerous cone to an actual driving route created based on the actual driving data, setting a driving route in a zone other than is dangerous Zone ay a predetermined driving route, and connecting the fixed actual driving route and the predetermined driving route so that they are continuous, Accordingly, the withdrawal of the claim rejection under § 101 1s respectfully request” - In response to point A the Examiner agrees with the arguments set forth by the Applicant and removes the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-7 as the inclusion of the claim limitation, “instructs the autonomous driving vehicle to follow a driving route configured by connecting the fixed actual driving route and the predetermined driving route so that they are continuous” adds an element of control that cannot be performed by the human mind and therefor is now considered to be patentable subject matter rather than a mental process with a transaction of data.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 7 applicant’s amendments to the claim changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 3, “claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kume et al. (US2O2403 O8S37A 1). As stated on the above, Applicant amends claims 1 and 7 by further reciting the specific operations of the claimed device and method. In contrast, Kume does not disclose the specific operations. Accordingly, the withdrawal of the claim rejection under § 102 is respectfully requested.” –As to point B the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that Kume does not teach “ wherein the instruction device determines a dangerous zone included in a driving region”. During Patent Examination, pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned amendment is a computer determines a region of space in which the vehicle cannot enter in order to prevent harm to the host vehicle doing the determination. Kume teaches an obstacle avoidance method and system in which an avoidance route is generated in order to prevent collisions between a host vehicle and an object (as mapped above in claim 1 & 7). Therefor the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants arguments and assert that Kume teaches “wherein the instruction device determines a dangerous zone included in a driving region”. (Pg. 18 – [0083] – “First, in Step Sl, when an obstacle is identified by the obstacle identification unit 111 (YES in Sl), the flow moves to Step S2. Meanwhile, when no obstacle is identified by the obstacle identification unit 111 (NO in Sl), the flow moves to Step S12. In Step S2, the avoidance measure identification unit 131 identifies the avoidance route” (equates to wherein the instruction device determines a dangerous zone included in a driving region as the quote shows the obstacle being identified and leads to a generation of an avoidance route and thus a dangerous zone in the driving region is established based on the obstacle detected. ))
Similarly, the Applicant asserts that Kume doesn’t teach “when creating the driving route, the instruction device fixes a driving route in the dangerous zone to an actual driving route created based on the actual driving data,”. During Patent Examination, pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned amendment is to set a driving route of a host vehicle to include a zone of travel which doesn’t permit safe passage to the host vehicle wherein driving data based on real driving scenarios can determine this state of unsafe passage. Kume teaches a long term travelling plan in which the vehicle is set to follow and thus a fixed driving route is created for the host vehicle to travel upon whereby the perception system of the art detects obstacles or unsafe regions of passage along the predetermined path of travel wherein the host vehicle was set to travel. Therefor the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants arguments and assert that Kume teaches “when creating the driving route, the instruction device fixes a driving route in the dangerous zone to an actual driving route created based on the actual driving data”. (Pg. 15 – [0054] – “As the traveling plan, a long/intermediate-term traveling plan and a short-term traveling plan are generated. In the long/intermediate-term traveling plan, a route for directing the host vehicle to a set destination is generated. This route is a route including a plurality of links. The automatic driving ECU 10 may appropriately generate this route in the same manner as in a route search of the navigation function” & See Also Pg. 15 – [0059] – “When an obstacle is identified by the obstacle identification unit 111, the avoidance measure identification unit 131 identifies a measure (hereinafter referred to as the avoidance measure) to allow the host vehicle to avoid the obstacle” (equates to when creating the driving route, the instruction device fixes a driving route in the dangerous zone to an actual driving route created based on the actual driving data as the first quote shows the setting of a long term driving plan wherein the vehicle executes based on route search and the second quote shows how while the vehicle is travelling along the path the actual driving data collected may include a detected obstacle and thus a dangerous zone was include in the actual driving route and the dangerous zone was collected based on actual driving data.) )
Again, the Applicant asserts that Kume doesn’t teach “sets a driving route in a zone other than the dangerous zone as a predetermined driving route,”. During Patent Examination, pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned amendment is to set a different path of travel which doesn’t include a passage of previously detected unsafe travel. Kume discloses a detection of an obstacle and thus a dangerous zone whereby an avoidance route is generated to ensure safe passage of the host vehicle. Therefor the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants arguments and assert that Kume teaches “sets a driving route in a zone other than the dangerous zone as a predetermined driving route”. (Pg. 15 – [0059] – “When an obstacle is identified by the obstacle identification unit 111, the avoidance measure identification unit 131 identifies a route (hereinafter referred to as the avoidance route) corresponding to the scheduled traveling path for the host vehicle that allows the obstacle to be avoided as the avoidance measure” & See Also Pg. 18 – [0084] – “In Step S4, the behavior determination unit 103 generates the scheduled traveling path corresponding to the avoidance route identified in S2 as the short-term traveling plan. Subsequently, the control execution unit 104 causes the host vehicle to automatically travel along the scheduled traveling path. In other words, by the driving in a region within the traffic regulations, the obstacle identified in Sl is avoided.” (equates to sets a driving route in a zone other than the dangerous zone as a predetermined driving route as the first quote shows the setting of a driving route that lies outside of the detected obstacle and thus outside of a zone that would cause harm to the host vehicle and the second quote showing that the avoidance route is sent to the vehicle to control the vehicle to travel along it and thus avoid the deemed dangerous zone.) )
Lastly, the Applicant asserts that Kume doesn’t teach “and instructs the autonomous driving vehicle to follow a driving route configured by connecting the fixed actual driving route and the predetermined driving route so that they are continuous” During Patent Examination, pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned amendment is to control an autonomous vehicle to travel along a path that includes the initially set driving path and a separately set path of travel by which the paths are continuous leading the vehicle from the first to the latter. Kume discloses a system in which a long term travel plan is set and is comprised of links in which the continuous operation of the autonomous vehicle is permitted wherein the link can change based on the detection of an obstacle and thus an avoidance route is generated as a new short term path and thus a link is replaced within the predetermined plan to ensure safe passage and the route is made continuous by way of the vehicle following the newly made avoidance route and still travelling along the same long term route. Therefor the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants arguments and assert that Kume teaches “and instructs the autonomous driving vehicle to follow a driving route configured by connecting the fixed actual driving route and the predetermined driving route so that they are continuous”. (Pg. 18 – [0084] – “In Step S4, the behavior determination unit 103 generates the scheduled traveling path corresponding to the avoidance route identified in S2 as the short-term traveling plan. Subsequently, the control execution unit 104 causes the host vehicle to automatically travel along the scheduled traveling path. In other words, by the driving in a region within the traffic regulations, the obstacle identified in Sl is avoided.” & see also Pg. 15 – [0054 & 0055] – “As the traveling plan, a long/intermediate-term traveling plan and a short-term traveling plan are generated. In the long/intermediate-term traveling plan, a route for directing the host vehicle to a set destination is generated. This route is a route including a plurality of links. The automatic driving ECU 10 may appropriately generate this route in the same manner as in a route search of the navigation function. This route search may appropriately be performed on the basis of cost calculation using, e.g., a Dijkstra method. [0055] In the short-term traveling plan, the behavior determination unit 103 uses a generated virtual space around the host vehicle to generate a scheduled traveling path for implementing traveling according to the long/intermediate term traveling plan. Specifically, the behavior determination unit 103 determines execution of steering for a lane change, acceleration/deceleration for speed adjustment, steering for avoiding an obstacle, braking, or the like.” (equates to and instructs the autonomous driving vehicle to follow a driving route configured by connecting the fixed actual driving route and the predetermined driving route so that they are continuous as the first quote shows the short term driving plan being set based on the avoidance route and thus being equivalent to the actual driving route and the second quote showing the short term driving route being one of links of the long term driving plan and thus the long term driving plan is the predetermined path wherein the inclusion of the avoidance route to the short term plan allows for the continuous travelling along the predetermined path and thus still avoids the marked dangerous zone while reaching the desired destination.))
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2-6 applicant’s amendments to the claim changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
C . Applicant argues on page 3, Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume in view of Zhixin (CNEES928340A), Zhixin also fails to disclose the specific operations of the claimed instruction device. Therefore, a person skilled in the art cannot easily accomplish the claimed inventions of these claims based on Kame in view of Zhixin. Accordingly, the withdrawal of the claim rejection under § 103 is respectfully requested– As to point C see point B
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/R.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
12/19/25
Prosecution Insights