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 .
Status of Application
This action is in reply to the amendments filed 23 September 2025.
Claims 1-1, 13, 17 & 20 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending and elected for examination.
The Examiner respectfully rescinds the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection on claims 1-5, 7 & 10-12 in view of the claimed amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 09/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 5 , 7, 9, 13 – 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brown et al. US 2022/0081005 A1.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, Applicant respectfully submits that a human mind is not practically capable of performing the recited first process based on "a wheel speed change rate acquired by each vehicle of a plurality of vehicles traveling on each of the road sections."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amendments overcome the rejection. The language “a wheel speed change rate acquired by each vehicle of a plurality of vehicles traveling on each of the road sections” is merely the collection of data (i.e. extra solution activity) and thus not a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. For these reason applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues, “Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the claim language at least integrates any asserted judicial exception into a practical application by improving the performance of the computer… Given the significant amount of calculations for executing the first process for "each vehicle of a plurality of vehicles traveling on each of the road sections," the reduction in processing load is more than a mere extra solution aspect of the claim language. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reduction in processing load by implementing the recited excluding would noticeably improve the functioning of the computer itself, as explicitly described in the originally filed application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and the examiner notes the determining step and excluding steps are interpreted as mental processes requiring the driver to avoid a road segment if the completion date is not met. The updated rejection is provided below. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the present application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 10, 2023, has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Terminology Clarification
The following terms are defined for clarity as interpreted by the examiner:
Lifeline facility as recited in Claim 11 is interpreted as a section of under-road infrastructure to include, as indicated by P0059 of the specification, water, gas, and power transmission pipes, as well as any other utilities or other conduit of material or information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 6, 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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. The terms "small" and “large” relating to the first estimated value described in claim 5 as relating to traffic volume in claim 6 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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. The terms "high" and “low” relating to pavement durability are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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. The features of “targeting” a road section, and “predetermined criterion” do not identify where or how such limitations are determined and for what purpose. The drawings do not show the feature. Therefore, it is not possible for a person having ordinary skill in the art to identify the scope of the feature.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria Step 1
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework considers whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention – method/process, machine/apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a machine. Claim 13 is directed to a method. Claim 20 is directed to a machine. Accordingly, claims 1, 13, and 20 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria Step 2A
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework considers whether claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea (Prong 1) and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Prong 2).
Step 2A Prong 1
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites the following, with abstract ideas emphasized. (Additional elements are italicized and analyzed in Prong 2):
(Currently Amended) An information processing device that executes a first process of estimating a road surface state for each of a plurality of road sections based on wheel speed change rate acquired by each vehicle of a plurality of vehicles traveling on each of the road sections, the information processing device comprising processor that is configured to execute the first process by:
among the plurality of road sections, acquiring first information for a first road section where first construction related to repair of a road surface has been performed, the first information including a completion date of the first construction and an area of the road surface repaired by the first construction;
based on the acquired first information, setting an exclusion period for the first road section, during which the first road section is excluded from the first processing;
registering the exclusion period in a database constructed in the information processing device, wherein the database includes a plurality of records corresponding to each of the plurality of road sections, and the processor registers the exclusion period in the record corresponding to the first road section;
determining, for a target road section of the plurality of road sections, whether the exclusion period is registered in the record corresponding to the target road section in the database; and
excluding the target road section from the first processing until the exclusion period has elapsed in a case where a determination is made that the exclusion period is registered in the record corresponding to the target road section in the database.
The above limitations in bold constitute “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a driver can determine a road closure by seeing the vehicles ahead are not moving, locate road signs indicating the road is closed and determine a period of time for the closure mentally. The driver can also mentally determine a new route that avoids the road closure for a period of time. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent claims 13 and 20 are not reproduced in their entirety as they recite the same abstract idea limitations as stated above. For further analysis of the subsequent prongs, their additional elements are recited below:
Claim 13: An information processing method, comprising:…
Claim 20: A non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to:…
Step 2A Prong 2
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(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 such as 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.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, which are indicated in the italicized portions, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of An information processing device that executes a first process of…based on wheel speed change rate acquired by each vehicle of a plurality of vehicles traveling on each of the road sections, the information processing device comprising processor that is configured to execute the first process by: among the plurality of road sections, acquiring first information for a first road section where first construction related to repair of a road surface has been performed, the first information including a completion date of the first construction… and an area of the road surface repaired by the first construction; based on the acquired first information… from the first processing; registering the exclusion period in a database constructed in the information processing device, wherein the database includes a plurality of records corresponding to each of the plurality of road sections, and the processor registers the exclusion period in the record corresponding to the first road section;… in the database these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea amounting to merely instructions for implementation equivalent to “apply it” without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). In addition, acquiring first information for a first road section where first construction related to repair of a road surface has been performed, the first information including a completion date of the first construction… and an area of the road surface repaired by the first construction; based on the acquired first information… from the first processing amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The registering the exclusion period in a database constructed in the information processing device, wherein the database includes a plurality of records corresponding to each of the plurality of road sections, and the processor registers the exclusion period in the record corresponding to the first road section is also recited at a high level of generality, and to storing and retrieving data from memory, which is also a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of these additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to “apply it” using a processing device and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the independent claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the independent claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the independent claims do 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 reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2). The additional elements of An information processing device that executes a first process of…based on wheel speed change rate acquired by each vehicle of a plurality of vehicles traveling on each of the road sections, the information processing device comprising processor that is configured to execute the first process by: among the plurality of road sections, acquiring first information for a first road section where first construction related to repair of a road surface has been performed, the first information including a completion date of the first construction… and an area of the road surface repaired by the first construction; based on the acquired first information… from the first processing; registering the exclusion period in a database constructed in the information processing device, wherein the database includes a plurality of records corresponding to each of the plurality of road sections, and the processor registers the exclusion period in the record corresponding to the first road section;… in the database are all recited at a high level of generality amounting to data gathering, and storing and retrieving information in memory which are well understood routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
Thus, the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims 2 through 12, and 14 through 19 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The dependent claims are directed to implementation details which merely amounts to merely instructions for implementation equivalent to “apply it” without significantly more. These limitations recite additional abstract ideas, are extra-solution activity, or part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 , 8-9, 12 – 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0140569 A1, hereinafter Foster in view of Brown et al. US 2022/0081005 A1, hereafter Brown and in further view of Kimura et al. US 2021/0063196 A1, hereafter Kimura.
Regarding claim 1, Foster teaches among the plurality of road sections, acquire first information for a first road section where first construction related to repair of a road surface has been performed (see at least Foster P0527: An unmapped construction zone is defined as a section of the roadway that is not indicated in the map as a construction zone, but with active roadwork going on that may involve a lane closure, detour, or having moving equipment.)
Foster does not disclose the following, however Brown does teach:
acquiring first information for a first road section where first construction related to repair of a road surface has been performed, the first information including a completion date of the first construction and an area of the road surface repaired by the first construction; (para. 0178: “In one embodiment, the operation server 1500 may determine the estimated completion time of the construction zone 902 (e.g., from external sources, such as published construction zone data, etc.). For example, assume that the operation server 1500 determines that the construction zone 902 may become extensive during a particular period in the future.”) based on the acquired first information, setting an exclusion period for the first road section, during which the first road section is excluded from the first processing (para. 0178: “For example, assume that the operation server 1500 determines that the construction zone 902 may become extensive during a particular period in the future. In such cases, the operation server 1500 may determine new routing plans 1514 for the AVs 1602 to travel during the particular period in the future to avoid the construction zone 902.”);
registering the exclusion period in a database constructed in the information processing device (para. 0008: “The second processor updates the first portion of the map data, reflecting that the particular road is temporarily closed at the particular location coordinates based at least in part upon the first message. & 0239: “The memory 1404 is operable to store any of the information described above with respect to FIGS. 1-13 along with any other data, instructions, logic, rules, or code operable to implement the function(s) described herein when executed by processor 1402… The memory 1404 may further store the unexpected situation instructions 1410 (e.g., unknown object instructions 1410a, road closure instructions 1410b, construction zone instructions 1410c, and road structure change instruction 1410d), described above with respect to FIGS. 2-13. The memory 1404 comprises one or more disks, tape drives, or solid-state drives, and may be used as an over-flow data storage device, to store programs when such programs are selected for execution, and to store instructions and data that are read during program execution.),
determining, for a target road section of the plurality of road sections, whether the exclusion period is registered in the record corresponding to the target road section in the database (para. 0178: “In one embodiment, the operation server 1500 may determine the estimated completion time of the construction zone 902 (e.g., from external sources, such as published construction zone data, etc.). For example, assume that the operation server 1500 determines that the construction zone 902 may become extensive during a particular period in the future. In such cases, the operation server 1500 may determine new routing plans 1514 for the AVs 1602 to travel during the particular period in the future to avoid the construction zone 902.); and
excluding the target road section from the first processing until the exclusion period has elapsed in a case where a determination is made that the exclusion period is registered in the record corresponding to the target road section in the database (para. 0178: “In one embodiment, the operation server 1500 may determine the estimated completion time of the construction zone 902 (e.g., from external sources, such as published construction zone data, etc.). For example, assume that the operation server 1500 determines that the construction zone 902 may become extensive during a particular period in the future. In such cases, the operation server 1500 may determine new routing plans 1514 for the AVs 1602 to travel during the particular period in the future to avoid the construction zone 902.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Brown with the technique of Foster to increase the function and integrity of the navigation system such that the navigation system avoids the road closure. Therefore, the design incentives of increased functionality provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Foster and Brown do not disclose the following, however Kimura does teach:
An information processing device that executes a first process of estimating a road surface state for each of a plurality of road sections based on wheel speed change rate acquired by each vehicle of a plurality of vehicles traveling on each of the road sections, the information processing device comprising processor that is configured to execute the first process (para. 0078: “In the server 20 included in the display system 10 of the embodiment, the road condition estimator 23 performs the road condition estimating process of FIG. 2 to estimate the road condition, based on the average wheel speed variation rate ΔVa and the maximum wheel speed variation rate ΔVm of the plurality of vehicles 50 with regard to each road section of the roads in the estimation requiring range.)
registering the exclusion period in a database constructed in the information processing device, wherein the database includes a plurality of records corresponding to each of the plurality of road sections, and the processor registers the exclusion period in the record corresponding to the first road section (para. 0030: “The road condition estimator 23 serves to estimate the road condition of each road section, based on the vehicle information from the plurality of vehicles 50, to generate (or update) a road condition database by correlating each road section to the road condition and to store the generated (or updated) road condition database into the storage device 30.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Kimura with the technique of Foster & Brown to improve the accuracy of a road maintenance plan such that the estimate of the maintenance time period is improved. Therefore, the design incentives of improved accuracy provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Regarding claim 2, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 1 and the control unit resumes the first process for the first road section when a first period length elapses after the first construction is ended (see at least Foster P0101: when a construction zone traffic sign and traffic control devices on a roadway are detected by the at least one perception sensor of the autonomous vehicle, further comprising: establishing a virtual wall separating the construction zone and the roadway; and causing the autonomous vehicle to stay at least a predetermined safe distance away from the virtual wall and P0871: the map extends to cover the entire roadway of all off-route first MRC safety areas that do not vertically intersect with the route plus an additional 400 meter (1312 ft) in length past the end of the last mapped MRC safety area the examiner interprets a virtual wall at least a safe distance away as an example of a length beyond/after the construction area).
Regarding claim 3, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 2 and the control unit sets the first period length according to an area of the road surface repaired by the first construction (see at least Foster P0101: establishing a virtual wall separating the construction zone and the roadway; and causing the autonomous vehicle to stay at least a predetermined safe distance away from the virtual wall).
Regarding claim 4, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 3 and the control unit sets the first period length longer when the area of the road surface repaired by the first construction is large than when the area of the road surface repaired by the first construction is small (see at least Foster P0889: when approaching a mapped construction zone, the autonomous vehicle 105 may maintain a predetermined safe distance from traffic control devices. The predetermined safe distance can include, for example, 8%, 10%, or 12% of lane width the examiner interprets a percentage-based safe distance as an example of a longer length when the area is larger).
Regarding claim 5, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 2 and the control unit sets the first period length according to a first estimated value that is an estimated value of traffic volume in the first road section (see at least Foster P0589: A dynamic zone is defined as a zone where traffic patterns vary on periodic basis. For example, there may be periodic lane closures and openings based on traffic volume or time of the day the examiner interprets closing a lane based on traffic volume as an example of setting a length according to traffic volume).
Regarding claim 7, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 2 and the control unit sets the first period length according to durability of a pavement material used in the first construction (see at least Foster P0879: Road surfaces may be defined as rough, loose gravel, bridge (parallel stones or grated surfaces), slippery surface types, etc. and P0882: The in-vehicle control computer 150 may also plan an alternative route to avoid a pavement end or unpaved road because an unpaved road may affect the performance behavior of the autonomous vehicle 105. Unpaved roads can create dust for following vehicles and impair road visibility. Once on an unpaved road, the autonomous vehicle 105 may avoid overtaking vehicles in front for safety measures. For example, the autonomous vehicle 105 can prioritize paved lanes when planning a route to destination the examiner interprets avoidance based on pavement as an example of increasing the length around a construction zone).
Regarding claim 8, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 7 and the control unit sets the first period length longer when the durability of the pavement material used in the first construction is high than when the durability of the pavement material used in the first construction is low (see at least Foster P0882: The in-vehicle control computer 150 may also plan an alternative route to avoid a pavement end or unpaved road because an unpaved road may affect the performance behavior of the autonomous vehicle 105. Unpaved roads can create dust for following vehicles and impair road visibility… the autonomous vehicle 105 can prioritize paved lanes when planning a route to destination the examiner interprets unpaved roads as an example of low durability).
Foster teaches avoidance or period length around the construction area being greater on lower durability roadways. Foster does not explicitly teach a higher durability pavement resulting in a longer period length. However, it would have been obvious to try, as there are only two options (greater length or lesser length) in response to differing pavement durability types (higher or lower), with predictable control results of treating the opposite paving durability classification in the same way that is taught by Foster. The success of this change of control logic would be reasonably expected given the control programming, with the same outcome described by Foster of avoidance of a construction zone.
Regarding claim 9, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 2 and the control unit executes: the first process targeting the first road section when the first construction is ended (see at least Foster P0893: When an end of construction zone sign is detected, the autonomous vehicle 105 may also inform the oversight system 350); and the first process by excluding the first road section until the first period length elapses after the first construction is ended when the road surface state estimated by the first process satisfies a predetermined criterion (see at least Foster P0530: An end of the construction zone may be an area that meets conditions predefined in the in-vehicle control computer 150 of the autonomous vehicle 105).
Regarding claim 12, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 1 and when the first construction is construction to repair a pothole in the first road section, the control unit executes the first process without excluding the first road section (see at least Foster P1029: the in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to determine that a pothole is an avoidable pothole in response to the detected pothole having a width less than that of the autonomous vehicle's 105 tire width and a depth less than a predetermined percentage of the autonomous vehicle's 105 wheel diameter and P1032: In response to detecting an unavoidable pothole having a width less than the autonomous vehicle's 105 tire width and a depth less than the threshold percentage of the autonomous vehicle's 105 wheel diameter, the in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to slow the autonomous vehicle 105 down to a predetermined amount of the current speed limit and plan to go over them the examiner interprets going over the pothole as an example of not excluding the road section).
Foster does not explicitly teach that construction for a pothole may be processed without excluding the road section. However, Foster teaches that if construction closes a lane but not the entire road section, it may be controlled without exclusion (see at least Foster P0892: When a construction zone lane closure sign is detected, the autonomous vehicle 105 may plan a critical safety lane change to a lane that is not closed). It would be obvious to implement the same construction controls based on the construction zone in response to a pothole or other road defect.
Regarding claim 13, Foster teaches An information processing method, wherein a computer (see at least Foster Fig. 1 showing the vehicle control computer with processors, networking, and vehicle operation systems) that executes a first process of estimating a road surface state for each of a plurality of road sections based on a first value acquired by a vehicle traveling on each of the road sections (see at least Foster P0527: Upon detection of an unmapped construction zone during a mission, the in-vehicle computer 150 of the autonomous vehicle 105 may report the unmapped construction zone to the oversight system 350) executes the first process by excluding, from among the road sections, a first road section where first construction related to repair of a road surface has been performed (see at least Foster P0527: section of the roadway that is not indicated in the map as a construction zone, but with active roadwork going on that may involve a lane closure, detour, or having moving equipment and P0528: use an alternate route if available and avoid entering into the construction zone the examiner interprets use of an alternative route as an example of excluding the road section in the detected construction zone from travel).
Regarding claim 14, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 13 and the computer resumes the first process for the first road section when a first period length elapses after the first construction is ended (see at least Foster P0101: when a construction zone traffic sign and traffic control devices on a roadway are detected by the at least one perception sensor of the autonomous vehicle, further comprising: establishing a virtual wall separating the construction zone and the roadway; and causing the autonomous vehicle to stay at least a predetermined safe distance away from the virtual wall and P0871: the map extends to cover the entire roadway of all off-route first MRC safety areas that do not vertically intersect with the route plus an additional 400 meter (1312 ft) in length past the end of the last mapped MRC safety area the examiner interprets a virtual wall at least a safe distance away as an example of a length beyond/after the construction area).
Regarding claim 15, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 14 and the computer sets the first period length according to an area of the road surface repaired by the first construction (see at least Foster P0101: establishing a virtual wall separating the construction zone and the roadway; and causing the autonomous vehicle to stay at least a predetermined safe distance away from the virtual wall).
Regarding claim 16, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 14 and the computer sets the first period length in response to a first estimated value that is an estimated value of traffic volume in the first road section (see at least Foster P0589: A dynamic zone is defined as a zone where traffic patterns vary on periodic basis. For example, there may be periodic lane closures and openings based on traffic volume or time of the day the examiner interprets closing a lane based on traffic volume as an example of setting a length according to traffic volume).
Regarding claim 17, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 14 and the computer executes: the first process for the first road section when the first construction is ended (see at least Foster P0893: When an end of construction zone sign is detected, the autonomous vehicle 105 may also inform the oversight system 350); and the first process by excluding the first road section until the first period length elapses after the first construction is ended when the road surface state estimated by the first process satisfies a predetermined criterion (see at least Foster P0530: An end of the construction zone may be an area that meets conditions predefined in the in-vehicle control computer 150 of the autonomous vehicle 105).
Regarding claim 19, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 13 and when the first construction is construction to repair a pothole in the first road section, the computer executes the first process without excluding the first road section (see at least Foster P1029: the in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to determine that a pothole is an avoidable pothole in response to the detected pothole having a width less than that of the autonomous vehicle's 105 tire width and a depth less than a predetermined percentage of the autonomous vehicle's 105 wheel diameter and P1032: In response to detecting an unavoidable pothole having a width less than the autonomous vehicle's 105 tire width and a depth less than the threshold percentage of the autonomous vehicle's 105 wheel diameter, the in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to slow the autonomous vehicle 105 down to a predetermined amount of the current speed limit and plan to go over them the examiner interprets going over the pothole as an example of not excluding the road section).
Foster does not explicitly teach that construction for a pothole may be processed without excluding the road section. However, Foster teaches that if construction closes a lane but not the entire road section, it may be controlled without exclusion (see at least Foster P0892: When a construction zone lane closure sign is detected, the autonomous vehicle 105 may plan a critical safety lane change to a lane that is not closed). It would be obvious to implement the same construction controls based on the construction zone in response to a pothole or other road defect.
Claims 20 are directed toward a non-transitory storage medium that performs the steps recited in the system of claims 1. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 1 teach the steps recited in the non-transitory storage medium of claim 20. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Brown in view of Kimura and in further view of US 2022/0244060 A1, hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 6, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 5 but does not explicitly teach setting the first period length longer based on the traffic volume estimated value quantity. However, Li teaches a candidate route weighting system where the control unit sets the first period length longer when the first estimated value is small than when the first estimated value is large (see at least Li P0034: if there is a condition such as the heavy congestion or a road damage in the road, even if the road is not under a manual control and not closed, the road can be directly determined as a closed road the examiner interprets determination as being closed as an example of the first period length being elongated to the length of that road section to avoid that roadway).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Foster to apply the teachings of Li to improve the reliability of the determination for the predicted closure time length and improve the route generation effect (Li para. 0074). Therefore, the design incentives of improved reliability provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claims 10, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Brown in view of Kimura and in further view of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Design Publication, “Pavement Utility Cuts”, hereinafter FHWA.
Regarding claim 10, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 2 and the control unit resumes the first process for the first road section when second construction aimed at repair other than the repair of the road surface is performed for at least a part of the road surface of the first road section before the first period length elapses (see at least Foster P0892: When a construction zone lane closure sign is detected, the autonomous vehicle 105 may plan a critical safety lane change to a lane that is not closed the examiner interprets changing lanes as an example of resuming the first process by first avoiding the part of the road surface of the second construction).
Foster does not explicitly teach that construction takes place aimed at issues other than roadwork, however, Foster does recite that the construction zone (see at least P0527) may involve a lane closure, detour, or having moving equipment. Furthermore, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) teaches that roadway construction for utility repairs frequently requires road construction (see at least FHWA, Federal Highway Administration 2.1.2 Congestion of Utilities: Public and private utilities are most often located in the public ROW, meaning that access to underground physical facilities often results in digging and backfilling trenches. Many times this means trenching into public roads: city streets, highways, and other public transportation facilities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Foster to apply the teachings of FHWA in the road management field to process construction aimed at any work that disrupts the normal roadway, including non-surface repairs. Foster’s invention accommodates road repair and non-repair construction, detecting any lane closure, detour, or equipment, and its combination with the FHWA advantageously separates construction from drivable areas and ensures adherence to construction indicators and personnel (see at least Foster P0529) in response to a common road construction cause (see at least FHWA 2.2).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Foster and FHWA teaches the limitations of claim 10 and the Federal Highway Administration teaches the second construction is construction aimed at repairing a lifeline facility buried under the road surface of the first road section (see at least FHWA 2.1.2 Congestion of Utilities: Public and private utilities are most often located in the public ROW, meaning that access to underground physical facilities often results in digging and backfilling trenches. Many times this means trenching into public roads: city streets, highways, and other public transportation facilities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Foster to apply the teachings of FHWA in the road management field to process construction aimed at any work that disrupts the normal roadway, including non-surface repairs. Foster’s invention accommodates road repair and non-repair construction, detecting any lane closure, detour, or equipment, and its combination with the FHWA advantageously separates construction from drivable areas and ensures adherence to construction indicators and personnel (see at least Foster P0529) in response to a common road construction cause (see at least FHWA 2.2).
Regarding claim 18, Foster teaches the limitations of claim 14 and the computer resumes the first process for the first road section when second construction aimed at repair other than the repair of the road surface is performed for at least a part of the road surface of the first road section before the first period length elapses (see at least Foster P0892: When a construction zone lane closure sign is detected, the autonomous vehicle 105 may plan a critical safety lane change to a lane that is not closed the examiner interprets changing lanes as an example of resuming the first process by first avoiding the part of the road surface of the second construction).
Foster does not explicitly teach that construction takes place aimed at issues other than roadwork, however, Foster does recite that the construction zone (see at least P0527) may involve a lane closure, detour, or having moving equipment. Furthermore, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) teaches that roadway construction for utility repairs frequently requires road construction (see at least FHWA, Federal Highway Administration 2.1.2 Congestion of Utilities: Public and private utilities are most often located in the public ROW, meaning that access to underground physical facilities often results in digging and backfilling trenches. Many times this means trenching into public roads: city streets, highways, and other public transportation facilities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Foster to apply the teachings of FHWA in the road management field to process construction aimed at any work that disrupts the normal roadway, including non-surface repairs. Foster’s invention accommodates road repair and non-repair construction, detecting any lane closure, detour, or equipment, and its combination with the FHWA advantageously separates construction from drivable areas and ensures adherence to construction indicators and personnel (see at least Foster P0529) in response to a common road construction cause (see at least FHWA 2.2)
Conclusion
Related References
The related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11322025 B2 by Zhang teaches a construction validation system to confirm roadwork using vehicle behavior data and road characteristics.
US 9141107 B2 by Ferguson teaches determination of active versus inactive roadway construction sites.
US 2017 /0069209 A1 by Beaurepaire teaches a navigation system that identifies road hazards including construction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWvqanxc3nM is a video showing a live construction zone identification system in an autonomous vehicle.
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