DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Applicant’s Appeal Brief filed February 16, 2026. Claims 1-14 remain in the application.
In view of the appeal brief filed on February 16, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
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 .
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sugaiwa et al. (US 2018/0267530 A1).
Sugaiwa et al. teaches, according to claim 1, an autonomous travel method (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0002], “The disclosure relates to an automated driving system.”) comprising:
detecting an object to be detected while a work vehicle is traveling on a connecting road that connects a first area and a second area (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0032], “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the configuration of an automated driving system 100 of a first embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, the automated driving system 100 is installed on a vehicle V, such as a passenger automobile. The automated driving system 100 is a system for causing the vehicle V to travel in an automated driving mode. The automated driving means vehicle control for causing the vehicle V to autonomously travel toward a preset destination, without requiring a user (including a driver, etc.) of the vehicle V to perform driving operation.”; and para. [0042], “The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes one obstacle or two or more obstacles around the vehicle V, based on the result of detection of the external sensor(s) 3 (ambient surroundings of the vehicle V). The obstacles include stationary obstacles, such as a guardrail, roadside tree, and a building, and moving obstacles, such as a person (pedestrian), animal, bicycle, and another vehicle. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes at least one of the position, size, range, and moving direction of the one obstacle or each of the obstacles, and the velocity of the obstacle relative to the vehicle V. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 outputs the result of recognition of the obstacle(s) to the traveling plan creating unit 12 via the overwriting unit 14.”); and
causing the work vehicle to:
perform avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered as an avoidance travel target that is a subject to be avoided by the work vehicle in the avoidance travel thereof (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0045], “The traveling plan creating unit 12 creates a short-term traveling plan, based on the detection results of the external sensor(s) 3 and the internal sensor(s) 5, obstacle recognition result generated from the obstacle recognizing unit 11 via the overwriting unit 14, position of the vehicle V, and the long-term traveling plan…”); or
abstain from performance of the avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered as a non-avoidance travel target that is a subject not to be avoided by the work vehicle (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0040], “The input device 9 is an interface that allows the user of the vehicle V to enter various kinds of information into the automated driving system 100. The input device 9 is an HMI (Human Machine Interface). The input device 9 transmits information entered by the user to the ECU 10. In the case where a certain obstacle around the vehicle V has no influence on automated driving of the vehicle V, the user performs overwriting input on the input device 9 so as to cause the system to ignore the obstacle recognized on the system side…”).
The claimed “abstain from performance of the avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered” is being interpreted as a recognition, by the vehicle or authorized user, that a given obstacle is recognized, but not to be considered in the establishment of an approved path of the vehicle. In the Sugaiwa reference, the user creates an input identifying the obstacle to be ignored, as such. Similarly, Applicant’s own specification (at para. [0086] as filed), indicates “If the operator selects the answer (“YES”) to exclude the trees B1 and B2 from the avoidance travel targets, the reception process unit 212 accepts the operation, and the generation process unit 214 excludes the trees B1 and B2 from the avoidance travel targets (sets them as non-avoidance travel targets) to generate the inter-field route R12…”. If the interpretation of “abstain” and “registered”, as understood from the specification, is not directly satisfied by Sugaiwa, it is considered that these elements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, in light of the teaching of Sugaiwa.
Regarding claim 2, the method further comprises accepting a travel operation of a user;
acquiring position information of the work vehicle traveling on the connecting route based on the travel operation; acquiring position information of the object to be detected; generating an inter-area route for causing the work vehicle to travel autonomously between the first area and the second area based on the position information of the work vehicle; and storing the position information of the object to be detected in association with the inter-area route based on the object to be detected that is registered as the non-avoidance travel target (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0043], “The traveling plan creating unit 12 creates a traveling plan of the vehicle V, based on at least one of the detection results of the external sensor(s) 3 and the internal sensor(s) 5, position information obtained by the GPS receiver 4, map information of the map database 6, various kinds of information transmitted from the navigation system 7, and the obstacle recognition result generated from the obstacle recognizing unit 11 via the overwriting unit 14. The traveling plan creating unit 12 starts creating a traveling plan when the user performs operation to start automated driving control. The traveling plan includes a long-term traveling plan for a period it takes for the vehicle V to reach a preset designation, from the current position of the vehicle V, and a short-term traveling plan corresponding to an actual road environment and ambient surroundings. The long-term traveling plan depends on map information. The short-term traveling plan is a plan with which the vehicle V is expected to travel over a detection range of the external sensor(s) 3 (e.g., a range within 150 m ahead of the vehicle V). The short-term traveling plan may be created repeatedly, from a time point at which the request for start of automated driving is entered to a time point at which the vehicle V reaches the preset destination (while the automated driving is performed).”).
Regarding claim 3, the method further comprises announcing that the object to be detected is detected based on the object to be detected that is detected during the work vehicle traveling on the connecting road based on the traveling operation (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0067], “If a negative decision (NO) is obtained in step S12, the control proceeds to step S17 that will be described later. If an affirmative decision (YES) is obtained in step S12, the obstacle is recognized by the obstacle recognizing unit 11 (step S13), as in the above step S3. Then, the obstacle recognition result obtained by the obstacle recognizing unit 11 is presented via the display device 21 (step S14). As in the above step S4, it is determined whether the user is entering overwriting input into the input device 9 (step S15).”).
Regarding claim 4, the method further comprises requesting the user to indicate whether or not to register the object to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target; and storing the position information of the object to be detected in association with the inter- area route based on an indication from the user to register the object to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0068], “If an affirmative decision (YES) is obtained in step S15, the overwriting unit 14 executes overwriting operation to exclude the obstacle from the obstacle recognition result obtained by the obstacle recognizing unit 11 (step S16). After execution of step S16, the obstacle recognition result subjected to the overwriting operation is generated to the traveling plan creating unit 12, and the control proceeds to step S17 that will be described later. On the other hand, if a negative decision (NO) is obtained in step S15, the overwriting unit 14 does not perform the overwriting operation, and the obstacle recognition result obtained by the obstacle recognizing unit 11 is generated as it is to the traveling plan creating unit 12. Then, the control proceeds to step S17 that will be described later. In step S17, the traveling plan creating unit 12 creates a traveling plan, as in the above step S6. Then, as in the above step S7, the vehicle controller 13 performs vehicle control based on the traveling plan, so that the vehicle V autonomously travels according to the traveling plan (step S18).”).
Regarding claim 5, the method further comprises inquiring of requesting the user about to indicate whether or not to register each one of a plurality of objects to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target when based on the plurality of objects to be detected are being detected; and storing the position information of the object to be detected in association with the inter-area route, the object to be detected selected, by the user, out of the plurality of objects to be detected (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0065], “The overwriting unit 14 of the automated driving system 200 can perform partial overwriting operation as operation to exclude (or ignore) a part of two or more obstacles from the obstacle recognition result, as the overwriting operation. The partial overwriting operation is operation to selectively or partially overwrite the recognized two or more obstacles. For example, in the case where two or more obstacles are recognized by the obstacle recognizing unit 11, and the two or more obstacles are displayed on the display device 21, if the user performs overwriting input (e.g., a touch on the touch panel 22) for excluding one obstacle from the obstacle recognition result via the input device 9, the overwriting unit 14 ignores only the one obstacle, out of the obstacle recognition result .”).
Regarding claim 6, the method further comprises causing, based on the object to be detected being detected during the work vehicle traveling on the connecting road based on the travel operation, a user terminal to display information indicating that the object to be detected is detected in a display mode corresponding to a distance from the work vehicle to the object to be detected (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0067], “If a negative decision (NO) is obtained in step S12, the control proceeds to step S17 that will be described later. If an affirmative decision (YES) is obtained in step S12, the obstacle is recognized by the obstacle recognizing unit 11 (step S13), as in the above step S3. Then, the obstacle recognition result obtained by the obstacle recognizing unit 11 is presented via the display device 21 (step S14). As in the above step S4, it is determined whether the user is entering overwriting input into the input device 9 (step S15).”).
Regarding claim 7, the method further comprises storing information about a type of the object to be detected in association with the position information of the object to be detected based on the object to be detected that is detected during the work vehicle traveling on the connecting road based on the travel operation (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0042], “The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes one obstacle or two or more obstacles around the vehicle V, based on the result of detection of the external sensor(s) 3 (ambient surroundings of the vehicle V). The obstacles include stationary obstacles, such as a guardrail, roadside tree, and a building, and moving obstacles, such as a person (pedestrian), animal, bicycle, and another vehicle. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes at least one of the position, size, range, and moving direction of the one obstacle or each of the obstacles, and the velocity of the obstacle relative to the vehicle V. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 outputs the result of recognition of the obstacle(s) to the traveling plan creating unit 12 via the overwriting unit 14.”).
Regarding claim 8, the method further comprises causing the work vehicle abstain from performance of the avoidance travel based on detection by the work vehicle of the object to be detected during autonomous travel on the inter-area route and based on a position of the object to be detected that is included in the position information of the object to be detected that is associated with the inter-area route (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0048], “The overwriting unit 14 performs overwriting operation to exclude one obstacle or at least a part of two or more obstacles from the obstacle recognition result based on which the traveling plan is created by the traveling plan creating unit 12. More specifically, when an ON signal is transmitted from the input device 9, in response to input into the input device 9 by the user, the overwriting unit 14 determines that no obstacle was recognized by the obstacle recognizing unit 11, and executes overwriting operation to output 0 (a result indicating that no obstacle is recognized) from the obstacle recognizing unit 11 to the traveling plan creating unit 12.”).
Regarding claim 9, the method further comprises requesting the user to indicate whether or not to register the object to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target based on detection by the work vehicle of the object to be detected that is not associated with the inter-area route during autonomous travel on the inter-area route; and storing the position information of the object to be detected in association with the inter- area route based on receipt of a command issued by the user to register the object to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0057], “For example, in a scene where a person stops and talks in the vicinity of a pedestrians' crossing, if the user can appropriately determine, from the person's movement and expression, that the person will not enter the crossing, the user enters overwriting input into the input device 9, so as to overwrite the obstacle recognition result into a result indicating that there is no person in the vicinity of the crossing. As a result, a traveling plan is created based on the obstacle recognition result subjected to overwriting, and the vehicle V travels autonomously, without being switched to manual driving. Further, if the input into the input device 9 is stopped, the system returns to a condition where the obstacle recognition result is not overwritten. In this case, a traveling plan is created based on the obstacle recognition result that is not subjected to overwriting, and the vehicle V autonomously travels as usual.”).
Regarding claim 10, the method further comprises requesting the user to indicate whether or not to exclude the object to be detected from the non-avoidance travel target based on detection by the work vehicle of the object to be detected that is not associated with the inter-area route during autonomous travel on the inter-area route; and deleting the position information of the object to be detected based on receipt of a command issued by the user to exclude the object to be detected from the non-avoidance travel target (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0060], “In the automated driving system 100 as described above, the overwriting unit 14 can overwrite the obstacle recognition result on the system side, via input of the user. Even in the case where it is difficult for the obstacle recognizing unit 11 to correctly recognize an obstacle around the vehicle V, the user can exclude the obstacle from the obstacle recognition result by appropriately performing input operation, so as to continue automated driving (avoid switching to manual driving). Namely, it is possible to curb deterioration of the convenience of automated driving.”).
Regarding claim 11, the method further comprises requesting the user to indicate whether or not to register a second object to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target based on detection by the work vehicle of the second object to be detected that is of a different type from a first object to be detected that is associated with the inter-area route during autonomous travel on the inter-area route; and deleting first position information of the first object to be detected that is associated with the inter-area route and storing second position information of the second object to be detected in association with the inter-area route based on receipt of a command issued by the user to register the second object to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0060], “In the automated driving system 100 as described above, the overwriting unit 14 can overwrite the obstacle recognition result on the system side, via input of the user. Even in the case where it is difficult for the obstacle recognizing unit 11 to correctly recognize an obstacle around the vehicle V, the user can exclude the obstacle from the obstacle recognition result by appropriately performing input operation, so as to continue automated driving (avoid switching to manual driving). Namely, it is possible to curb deterioration of the convenience of automated driving.”).
Sugaiwa et al. teaches, according to claim 12, an autonomous travel system comprising:
a detection processor configured to detect an object to be detected while a work vehicle is traveling on a connecting road that connects a first area and a second area (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0032], “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the configuration of an automated driving system 100 of a first embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, the automated driving system 100 is installed on a vehicle V, such as a passenger automobile. The automated driving system 100 is a system for causing the vehicle V to travel in an automated driving mode. The automated driving means vehicle control for causing the vehicle V to autonomously travel toward a preset destination, without requiring a user (including a driver, etc.) of the vehicle V to perform driving operation.”; and para. [0042], “The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes one obstacle or two or more obstacles around the vehicle V, based on the result of detection of the external sensor(s) 3 (ambient surroundings of the vehicle V). The obstacles include stationary obstacles, such as a guardrail, roadside tree, and a building, and moving obstacles, such as a person (pedestrian), animal, bicycle, and another vehicle. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes at least one of the position, size, range, and moving direction of the one obstacle or each of the obstacles, and the velocity of the obstacle relative to the vehicle V. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 outputs the result of recognition of the obstacle(s) to the traveling plan creating unit 12 via the overwriting unit 14.”); and
a travel processor configured to cause the work vehicle to:
perform avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered as an avoidance travel target that is a subject to be avoided by the work vehicle in the avoidance travel thereof (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0045], “The traveling plan creating unit 12 creates a short-term traveling plan, based on the detection results of the external sensor(s) 3 and the internal sensor(s) 5, obstacle recognition result generated from the obstacle recognizing unit 11 via the overwriting unit 14, position of the vehicle V, and the long-term traveling plan…”); or
not perform the avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered as a non-avoidance travel target that is a subject not to be avoided by the work vehicle (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0040], “The input device 9 is an interface that allows the user of the vehicle V to enter various kinds of information into the automated driving system 100. The input device 9 is an HMI (Human Machine Interface). The input device 9 transmits information entered by the user to the ECU 10. In the case where a certain obstacle around the vehicle V has no influence on automated driving of the vehicle V, the user performs overwriting input on the input device 9 so as to cause the system to ignore the obstacle recognized on the system side…”).
The claimed “abstain from performance of the avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered” is being interpreted as a recognition, by the vehicle or authorized user, that a given obstacle is recognized, but not to be considered in the establishment of an approved path of the vehicle. In the Sugaiwa reference, the user creates an input identifying the obstacle to be ignored, as such. Similarly, Applicant’s own specification (at para. [0086] as filed), indicates “If the operator selects the answer (“YES”) to exclude the trees B1 and B2 from the avoidance travel targets, the reception process unit 212 accepts the operation, and the generation process unit 214 excludes the trees B1 and B2 from the avoidance travel targets (sets them as non-avoidance travel targets) to generate the inter-field route R12…”. If the interpretation of “abstain” and “registered”, as understood from the specification, is not directly satisfied by Sugaiwa, it is considered that these elements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, in light of the teaching of Sugaiwa.
Sugaiwa et al. teaches, according to claim 13, an autonomous travel program that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processor to perform operations (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0041], “…The ECU 10 sends and receives data by operating the CAN communication circuit, based on a signal generated by the CPU, for example, stores the input data in the RAM, loads the RAM with a program stored in the ROM, and executes the program loaded into the RAM…”), comprising:
detecting an object to be detected while a work vehicle is traveling on a connecting road that connects a first area and a second area (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0032], “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the configuration of an automated driving system 100 of a first embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, the automated driving system 100 is installed on a vehicle V, such as a passenger automobile. The automated driving system 100 is a system for causing the vehicle V to travel in an automated driving mode. The automated driving means vehicle control for causing the vehicle V to autonomously travel toward a preset destination, without requiring a user (including a driver, etc.) of the vehicle V to perform driving operation.”; and para. [0042], “The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes one obstacle or two or more obstacles around the vehicle V, based on the result of detection of the external sensor(s) 3 (ambient surroundings of the vehicle V). The obstacles include stationary obstacles, such as a guardrail, roadside tree, and a building, and moving obstacles, such as a person (pedestrian), animal, bicycle, and another vehicle. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes at least one of the position, size, range, and moving direction of the one obstacle or each of the obstacles, and the velocity of the obstacle relative to the vehicle V. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 outputs the result of recognition of the obstacle(s) to the traveling plan creating unit 12 via the overwriting unit 14.”); and
causing the work vehicle to:
perform avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered as an avoidance travel target that is a subject to be avoided by the work vehicle in the avoidance travel thereof (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0045], “The traveling plan creating unit 12 creates a short-term traveling plan, based on the detection results of the external sensor(s) 3 and the internal sensor(s) 5, obstacle recognition result generated from the obstacle recognizing unit 11 via the overwriting unit 14, position of the vehicle V, and the long-term traveling plan...”); or
abstain from performance of the avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered as a non-avoidance travel target that is a subject not to be avoided by the work vehicle (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0040], “The input device 9 is an interface that allows the user of the vehicle V to enter various kinds of information into the automated driving system 100. The input device 9 is an HMI (Human Machine Interface). The input device 9 transmits information entered by the user to the ECU 10. In the case where a certain obstacle around the vehicle V has no influence on automated driving of the vehicle V, the user performs overwriting input on the input device 9 so as to cause the system to ignore the obstacle recognized on the system side…”).
The claimed “abstain from performance of the avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered” is being interpreted as a recognition, by the vehicle or authorized user, that a given obstacle is recognized, but not to be considered in the establishment of an approved path of the vehicle. In the Sugaiwa reference, the user creates an input identifying the obstacle to be ignored, as such. Similarly, Applicant’s own specification (at para. [0086] as filed), indicates “If the operator selects the answer (“YES”) to exclude the trees B1 and B2 from the avoidance travel targets, the reception process unit 212 accepts the operation, and the generation process unit 214 excludes the trees B1 and B2 from the avoidance travel targets (sets them as non-avoidance travel targets) to generate the inter-field route R12…”. If the interpretation of “abstain” and “registered”, as understood from the specification, is not directly satisfied by Sugaiwa, it is considered that these elements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, in light of the teaching of Sugaiwa.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaiwa et al. in view of Kotlaba et al. (US 2024/0117598 A1).
Sugaiwa et al. teaches, according to claim 1, an autonomous travel method (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0002], “The disclosure relates to an automated driving system.”) comprising:
detecting an object to be detected while a work vehicle is traveling on a connecting road that connects a first area and a second area (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0032], “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the configuration of an automated driving system 100 of a first embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, the automated driving system 100 is installed on a vehicle V, such as a passenger automobile. The automated driving system 100 is a system for causing the vehicle V to travel in an automated driving mode. The automated driving means vehicle control for causing the vehicle V to autonomously travel toward a preset destination, without requiring a user (including a driver, etc.) of the vehicle V to perform driving operation.”; and para. [0042], “The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes one obstacle or two or more obstacles around the vehicle V, based on the result of detection of the external sensor(s) 3 (ambient surroundings of the vehicle V). The obstacles include stationary obstacles, such as a guardrail, roadside tree, and a building, and moving obstacles, such as a person (pedestrian), animal, bicycle, and another vehicle. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes at least one of the position, size, range, and moving direction of the one obstacle or each of the obstacles, and the velocity of the obstacle relative to the vehicle V. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 outputs the result of recognition of the obstacle(s) to the traveling plan creating unit 12 via the overwriting unit 14.”); and
causing the work vehicle to:
perform avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered as an avoidance travel target that is a subject to be avoided by the work vehicle in the avoidance travel thereof (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0045], “The traveling plan creating unit 12 creates a short-term traveling plan, based on the detection results of the external sensor(s) 3 and the internal sensor(s) 5, obstacle recognition result generated from the obstacle recognizing unit 11 via the overwriting unit 14, position of the vehicle V, and the long-term traveling plan…”).
Sugaiwa et al., in one implementation, identifies obstacles to exclude (ignore) from the obstacle recognition result (para. [0049]), but does not expressly teach, where Kotlaba et al. teaches, abstain from performance of the avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered as a non-avoidance travel target that is a subject not to be avoided by the work vehicle (Kotlaba et al., at least para. [0049], “…If an identified obstacle is determined to be new (or to be treated as new), the routine may further analyze information about the object to classify it (e.g., information about size, shape, distance from the vehicle, material type, surface conditions, etc.), and such as to classify whether the object can be ignored, cannot be ignored but can be removed, cannot be removed but can be avoided, and cannot be removed or avoided, such as to cause inhibition of vehicle movement if all alternative paths to the target destination location have at least one obstacle that cannot be removed or avoided. An object may be characterized as being unable to be removed or avoided if it is determined to be a human or animal (e.g., based on heat signature and/or movement) or if it is determined to be a structural element (e.g., a building or building portion, a vehicle, etc.). An object may be characterized as being able to be ignored if it satisfies one or more defined criteria (e.g., an object below a defined size, terrain that is within a defined amount of being level, based on the material type, etc.). An object may be characterized as being removable if it cannot be ignored but is within the vehicle's operating capabilities to move it (e.g., to fit within the vehicle's attachment), and avoidable if it is not removable but the vehicle is able to move around the obstacle without exceeding any safety criteria.”) It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Kotlaba et al. into the system of Sugaiwa et al. for the purpose of managing a wider array of potential obstacles to provide more options for treatment in route planning, and as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results. 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.
Regarding claim 2, the method further comprises accepting a travel operation of a user;
acquiring position information of the work vehicle traveling on the connecting route based on the travel operation; acquiring position information of the object to be detected; generating an inter-area route for causing the work vehicle to travel autonomously between the first area and the second area based on the position information of the work vehicle; and storing the position information of the object to be detected in association with the inter-area route based on the object to be detected that is registered as the non-avoidance travel target (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0043], “The traveling plan creating unit 12 creates a traveling plan of the vehicle V, based on at least one of the detection results of the external sensor(s) 3 and the internal sensor(s) 5, position information obtained by the GPS receiver 4, map information of the map database 6, various kinds of information transmitted from the navigation system 7, and the obstacle recognition result generated from the obstacle recognizing unit 11 via the overwriting unit 14. The traveling plan creating unit 12 starts creating a traveling plan when the user performs operation to start automated driving control. The traveling plan includes a long-term traveling plan for a period it takes for the vehicle V to reach a preset designation, from the current position of the vehicle V, and a short-term traveling plan corresponding to an actual road environment and ambient surroundings. The long-term traveling plan depends on map information. The short-term traveling plan is a plan with which the vehicle V is expected to travel over a detection range of the external sensor(s) 3 (e.g., a range within 150 m ahead of the vehicle V). The short-term traveling plan may be created repeatedly, from a time point at which the request for start of automated driving is entered to a time point at which the vehicle V reaches the preset destination (while the automated driving is performed).”).
Regarding claim 3, the method further comprises announcing that the object to be detected is detected based on the object to be detected that is detected during the work vehicle traveling on the connecting road based on the traveling operation (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0067], “If a negative decision (NO) is obtained in step S12, the control proceeds to step S17 that will be described later. If an affirmative decision (YES) is obtained in step S12, the obstacle is recognized by the obstacle recognizing unit 11 (step S13), as in the above step S3. Then, the obstacle recognition result obtained by the obstacle recognizing unit 11 is presented via the display device 21 (step S14). As in the above step S4, it is determined whether the user is entering overwriting input into the input device 9 (step S15).”).
Regarding claim 4, the method further comprises requesting the user to indicate whether or not to register the object to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target; and storing the position information of the object to be detected in association with the inter- area route based on an indication from the user to register the object to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0068], “If an affirmative decision (YES) is obtained in step S15, the overwriting unit 14 executes overwriting operation to exclude the obstacle from the obstacle recognition result obtained by the obstacle recognizing unit 11 (step S16). After execution of step S16, the obstacle recognition result subjected to the overwriting operation is generated to the traveling plan creating unit 12, and the control proceeds to step S17 that will be described later. On the other hand, if a negative decision (NO) is obtained in step S15, the overwriting unit 14 does not perform the overwriting operation, and the obstacle recognition result obtained by the obstacle recognizing unit 11 is generated as it is to the traveling plan creating unit 12. Then, the control proceeds to step S17 that will be described later. In step S17, the traveling plan creating unit 12 creates a traveling plan, as in the above step S6. Then, as in the above step S7, the vehicle controller 13 performs vehicle control based on the traveling plan, so that the vehicle V autonomously travels according to the traveling plan (step S18).”).
Regarding claim 5, the method further comprises inquiring of requesting the user about to indicate whether or not to register each one of a plurality of objects to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target when based on the plurality of objects to be detected are being detected; and storing the position information of the object to be detected in association with the inter-area route, the object to be detected selected, by the user, out of the plurality of objects to be detected (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0065], “The overwriting unit 14 of the automated driving system 200 can perform partial overwriting operation as operation to exclude (or ignore) a part of two or more obstacles from the obstacle recognition result, as the overwriting operation. The partial overwriting operation is operation to selectively or partially overwrite the recognized two or more obstacles. For example, in the case where two or more obstacles are recognized by the obstacle recognizing unit 11, and the two or more obstacles are displayed on the display device 21, if the user performs overwriting input (e.g., a touch on the touch panel 22) for excluding one obstacle from the obstacle recognition result via the input device 9, the overwriting unit 14 ignores only the one obstacle, out of the obstacle recognition result .”).
Regarding claim 6, the method further comprises causing, based on the object to be detected being detected during the work vehicle traveling on the connecting road based on the travel operation, a user terminal to display information indicating that the object to be detected is detected in a display mode corresponding to a distance from the work vehicle to the object to be detected (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0067], “If a negative decision (NO) is obtained in step S12, the control proceeds to step S17 that will be described later. If an affirmative decision (YES) is obtained in step S12, the obstacle is recognized by the obstacle recognizing unit 11 (step S13), as in the above step S3. Then, the obstacle recognition result obtained by the obstacle recognizing unit 11 is presented via the display device 21 (step S14). As in the above step S4, it is determined whether the user is entering overwriting input into the input device 9 (step S15).”).
Regarding claim 7, the method further comprises storing information about a type of the object to be detected in association with the position information of the object to be detected based on the object to be detected that is detected during the work vehicle traveling on the connecting road based on the travel operation (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0042], “The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes one obstacle or two or more obstacles around the vehicle V, based on the result of detection of the external sensor(s) 3 (ambient surroundings of the vehicle V). The obstacles include stationary obstacles, such as a guardrail, roadside tree, and a building, and moving obstacles, such as a person (pedestrian), animal, bicycle, and another vehicle. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes at least one of the position, size, range, and moving direction of the one obstacle or each of the obstacles, and the velocity of the obstacle relative to the vehicle V. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 outputs the result of recognition of the obstacle(s) to the traveling plan creating unit 12 via the overwriting unit 14.”).
Regarding claim 8, the method further comprises causing the work vehicle abstain from performance of the avoidance travel based on detection by the work vehicle of the object to be detected during autonomous travel on the inter-area route and based on a position of the object to be detected that is included in the position information of the object to be detected that is associated with the inter-area route (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0048], “The overwriting unit 14 performs overwriting operation to exclude one obstacle or at least a part of two or more obstacles from the obstacle recognition result based on which the traveling plan is created by the traveling plan creating unit 12. More specifically, when an ON signal is transmitted from the input device 9, in response to input into the input device 9 by the user, the overwriting unit 14 determines that no obstacle was recognized by the obstacle recognizing unit 11, and executes overwriting operation to output 0 (a result indicating that no obstacle is recognized) from the obstacle recognizing unit 11 to the traveling plan creating unit 12.”).
Regarding claim 9, the method further comprises requesting the user to indicate whether or not to register the object to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target based on detection by the work vehicle of the object to be detected that is not associated with the inter-area route during autonomous travel on the inter-area route; and storing the position information of the object to be detected in association with the inter- area route based on receipt of a command issued by the user to register the object to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0057], “For example, in a scene where a person stops and talks in the vicinity of a pedestrians' crossing, if the user can appropriately determine, from the person's movement and expression, that the person will not enter the crossing, the user enters overwriting input into the input device 9, so as to overwrite the obstacle recognition result into a result indicating that there is no person in the vicinity of the crossing. As a result, a traveling plan is created based on the obstacle recognition result subjected to overwriting, and the vehicle V travels autonomously, without being switched to manual driving. Further, if the input into the input device 9 is stopped, the system returns to a condition where the obstacle recognition result is not overwritten. In this case, a traveling plan is created based on the obstacle recognition result that is not subjected to overwriting, and the vehicle V autonomously travels as usual.”).
Regarding claim 10, the method further comprises requesting the user to indicate whether or not to exclude the object to be detected from the non-avoidance travel target based on detection by the work vehicle of the object to be detected that is not associated with the inter-area route during autonomous travel on the inter-area route; and deleting the position information of the object to be detected based on receipt of a command issued by the user to exclude the object to be detected from the non-avoidance travel target (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0060], “In the automated driving system 100 as described above, the overwriting unit 14 can overwrite the obstacle recognition result on the system side, via input of the user. Even in the case where it is difficult for the obstacle recognizing unit 11 to correctly recognize an obstacle around the vehicle V, the user can exclude the obstacle from the obstacle recognition result by appropriately performing input operation, so as to continue automated driving (avoid switching to manual driving). Namely, it is possible to curb deterioration of the convenience of automated driving.”).
Regarding claim 11, the method further comprises requesting the user to indicate whether or not to register a second object to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target based on detection by the work vehicle of the second object to be detected that is of a different type from a first object to be detected that is associated with the inter-area route during autonomous travel on the inter-area route; and deleting first position information of the first object to be detected that is associated with the inter-area route and storing second position information of the second object to be detected in association with the inter-area route based on receipt of a command issued by the user to register the second object to be detected as the non-avoidance travel target (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0060], “In the automated driving system 100 as described above, the overwriting unit 14 can overwrite the obstacle recognition result on the system side, via input of the user. Even in the case where it is difficult for the obstacle recognizing unit 11 to correctly recognize an obstacle around the vehicle V, the user can exclude the obstacle from the obstacle recognition result by appropriately performing input operation, so as to continue automated driving (avoid switching to manual driving). Namely, it is possible to curb deterioration of the convenience of automated driving.”).
Sugaiwa et al. teaches, according to claim 12, an autonomous travel system comprising:
a detection processor configured to detect an object to be detected while a work vehicle is traveling on a connecting road that connects a first area and a second area (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0032], “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the configuration of an automated driving system 100 of a first embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, the automated driving system 100 is installed on a vehicle V, such as a passenger automobile. The automated driving system 100 is a system for causing the vehicle V to travel in an automated driving mode. The automated driving means vehicle control for causing the vehicle V to autonomously travel toward a preset destination, without requiring a user (including a driver, etc.) of the vehicle V to perform driving operation.”; and para. [0042], “The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes one obstacle or two or more obstacles around the vehicle V, based on the result of detection of the external sensor(s) 3 (ambient surroundings of the vehicle V). The obstacles include stationary obstacles, such as a guardrail, roadside tree, and a building, and moving obstacles, such as a person (pedestrian), animal, bicycle, and another vehicle. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes at least one of the position, size, range, and moving direction of the one obstacle or each of the obstacles, and the velocity of the obstacle relative to the vehicle V. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 outputs the result of recognition of the obstacle(s) to the traveling plan creating unit 12 via the overwriting unit 14.”); and
a travel processor configured to cause the work vehicle to:
perform avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered as an avoidance travel target that is a subject to be avoided by the work vehicle in the avoidance travel thereof (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0045], “The traveling plan creating unit 12 creates a short-term traveling plan, based on the detection results of the external sensor(s) 3 and the internal sensor(s) 5, obstacle recognition result generated from the obstacle recognizing unit 11 via the overwriting unit 14, position of the vehicle V, and the long-term traveling plan…”).
Sugaiwa et al., in one implementation, identifies obstacles to exclude (ignore) from the obstacle recognition result (para. [0049]), but does not expressly teach, where Kotlaba et al. teaches, to not perform the avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered as a non-avoidance travel target that is a subject not to be avoided by the work vehicle (Kotlaba et al., at least para. [0049], “…If an identified obstacle is determined to be new (or to be treated as new), the routine may further analyze information about the object to classify it (e.g., information about size, shape, distance from the vehicle, material type, surface conditions, etc.), and such as to classify whether the object can be ignored, cannot be ignored but can be removed, cannot be removed but can be avoided, and cannot be removed or avoided, such as to cause inhibition of vehicle movement if all alternative paths to the target destination location have at least one obstacle that cannot be removed or avoided. An object may be characterized as being unable to be removed or avoided if it is determined to be a human or animal (e.g., based on heat signature and/or movement) or if it is determined to be a structural element (e.g., a building or building portion, a vehicle, etc.). An object may be characterized as being able to be ignored if it satisfies one or more defined criteria (e.g., an object below a defined size, terrain that is within a defined amount of being level, based on the material type, etc.). An object may be characterized as being removable if it cannot be ignored but is within the vehicle's operating capabilities to move it (e.g., to fit within the vehicle's attachment), and avoidable if it is not removable but the vehicle is able to move around the obstacle without exceeding any safety criteria.”). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Kotlaba et al. into the system of Sugaiwa et al. for the purpose of managing a wider array of potential obstacles to provide more options for treatment in route planning, and as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results. 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.
Sugaiwa et al. teaches, according to claim 13, an autonomous travel program that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processor to perform operations (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0041], “…The ECU 10 sends and receives data by operating the CAN communication circuit, based on a signal generated by the CPU, for example, stores the input data in the RAM, loads the RAM with a program stored in the ROM, and executes the program loaded into the RAM…”), comprising:
detecting an object to be detected while a work vehicle is traveling on a connecting road that connects a first area and a second area (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0032], “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the configuration of an automated driving system 100 of a first embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, the automated driving system 100 is installed on a vehicle V, such as a passenger automobile. The automated driving system 100 is a system for causing the vehicle V to travel in an automated driving mode. The automated driving means vehicle control for causing the vehicle V to autonomously travel toward a preset destination, without requiring a user (including a driver, etc.) of the vehicle V to perform driving operation.”; and para. [0042], “The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes one obstacle or two or more obstacles around the vehicle V, based on the result of detection of the external sensor(s) 3 (ambient surroundings of the vehicle V). The obstacles include stationary obstacles, such as a guardrail, roadside tree, and a building, and moving obstacles, such as a person (pedestrian), animal, bicycle, and another vehicle. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 recognizes at least one of the position, size, range, and moving direction of the one obstacle or each of the obstacles, and the velocity of the obstacle relative to the vehicle V. The obstacle recognizing unit 11 outputs the result of recognition of the obstacle(s) to the traveling plan creating unit 12 via the overwriting unit 14.”); and
causing the work vehicle to:
perform avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered as an avoidance travel target that is a subject to be avoided by the work vehicle in the avoidance travel thereof (Sugaiwa et al., at least para. [0045], “The traveling plan creating unit 12 creates a short-term traveling plan, based on the detection results of the external sensor(s) 3 and the internal sensor(s) 5, obstacle recognition result generated from the obstacle recognizing unit 11 via the overwriting unit 14, position of the vehicle V, and the long-term traveling plan...”).
Sugaiwa et al., in one implementation, identifies obstacles to exclude (ignore) from the obstacle recognition result (para. [0049]), but does not expressly teach, where Kotlaba et al. teaches, abstain from performance of the avoidance travel based on the object to be detected that is registered as a non-avoidance travel target that is a subject not to be avoided by the work vehicle (Kotlaba et al., at least para. [0049], “…If an identified obstacle is determined to be new (or to be treated as new), the routine may further analyze information about the object to classify it (e.g., information about size, shape, distance from the vehicle, material type, surface conditions, etc.), and such as to classify whether the object can be ignored, cannot be ignored but can be removed, cannot be removed but can be avoided, and cannot be removed or avoided, such as to cause inhibition of vehicle movement if all alternative paths to the target destination location have at least one obstacle that cannot be removed or avoided. An object may be characterized as being unable to be removed or avoided if it is determined to be a human or animal (e.g., based on heat signature and/or movement) or if it is determined to be a structural element (e.g., a building or building portion, a vehicle, etc.). An object may be characterized as being able to be ignored if it satisfies one or more defined criteria (e.g., an object below a defined size, terrain that is within a defined amount of being level, based on the material type, etc.). An object may be characterized as being removable if it cannot be ignored but is within the vehicle's operating capabilities to move it (e.g., to fit within the vehicle's attachment), and avoidable if it is not removable but the vehicle is able to move around the obstacle without exceeding any safety criteria.”). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Kotlaba et al. into the system of Sugaiwa et al. for the purpose of managing a wider array of potential obstacles to provide more options for treatment in route planning, and as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results. 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.
Regarding claim 14, Sugaiwa et al. does not expressly teach, where Kotlaba et al. teaches the method further comprising:
storing avoidance travel targets information indicating whether the object to be detected is registered as an avoidance travel target that is a subject to be avoided by the work vehicle during travel or a non-avoidance travel target that is a subject not to be avoided by the work vehicle during travel, wherein causing the work vehicle to:
perform avoidance travel or abstain from performance of the avoidance travel is based on the object to be detected being detected during the work vehicle traveling on the connecting road,
perform the avoidance travel is based on the object to be detected being registered as an avoidance travel target in the avoidance travel targets information, and
abstain from performance of the avoidance travel is based on the object to be detected being registered as a non-avoidance travel target in the avoidance travel targets information (Kotlaba et al., at least para. [0043], “…the routine then continues to analyze the 3D representation(s) to identify objects and other environment depth and shape features, to classify types of the objects as obstacles with respect to operations of the vehicle, and to update other existing information about such objects (if any). As discussed in greater detail elsewhere herein, such obstacle and other object data may be used in a variety of manners, including by a planner module to determine autonomous operations for the vehicle to perform.”; and para. [0049], “The routine 400 begins in block where it obtains information (e.g., as supplied from routine 300) about a powered earth-moving vehicle's target destination location (and optionally associated tasks) and current vehicle information (e.g., location, operating capabilities, other current status, etc.), and about current environment data for surroundings of the vehicle. The routine continues to block 415 to determine whether to classify obstacles identified in the environment data (e.g., if obstacle classification is not already available, such as from previous classification activities after which the environment data has not changed), and if not proceeds to block 425 to retrieve existing obstacle classification data, and otherwise continues to block 420 to perform obstacle classification activities. The activities may include identifying any objects or other obstacles in some or all of the environment data (e.g., an area between the current vehicle location and target destination location, such as along a direct path and a defined amount of additional area to the sides of the direct path)…”). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Kotlaba et al. into the system of Sugaiwa et al. as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD J. WALLACE whose telephone number is
(313) 446-4915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights