DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4 have been currently amended. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 1-4 are currently pending and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 16 of claim 1, the recitation ...for each road according its size, should read …for each road according to its size. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
As per Claim 1, the limitation, “upon detecting that the travel route includes the road other than the intrusion restricted road, modify the travel route so as to avoid the road other than the intrusion restricted road, and transmit a control command to the vehicle that increases sensitivity of a sensor of the vehicle to detect a person while traveling on the road other than the intrusion restricted road”. The limitation is a vague and indefinite, it is unclear to the Office how the vehicle is to avoid the road while simultaneously detecting a person while it is traveling on the road. Appropriate correction is required in this and any subsequent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al., Pub. No. US2008/0162027A1 in view of Matsumoto et al., JP2016218938A (provided by the applicant in IDS filed 8/18/25), hereinafter referred to as Murphy and Matsumoto, respectively.
As per Claim 1, Murphy discloses a method and system comprising:
A controller configured to:
acquire a travel plan for a vehicle and road information regarding an intrusion restricted road on which intrusion of people into a roadway is restricted, the instruction restricted road includes a road on which intrusion of people into roadways is restricted or pedestrian-vehicle separated roads that separate a pedestrian path from the roadways by a physical structure including guardrails, curbs, or steps (see at least 0011, 0122-0123, “The sensed object may be at least one of pedestrian, a sidewalk, a pedestrian crossing light, a vehicle, a bicycle ….a bicycle lane, a curb…”);
determine, based on the road information, whether a travel route included in the travel plan includes a road other than the intrusion restricted road, the road other than the intrusion restricted road includes a road in which pedestrian or bicycle paths are not separated from the roadways by the physical structure and is marked by demarcation lines (see at least 0011, 0122-0123, “The sensed object may be at least one of pedestrian, a sidewalk, a pedestrian crossing light, a vehicle, a bicycle ….a bicycle lane, a curb…”);
upon detecting that the travel route includes the road other than the intrusion restricted road, modify the travel route so as to avoid the road other than the intrusion restricted road (see at least 0011, 0122-0123, 0187, See Figure 81, “shows a situation in which the vehicle is driving on a road with a bicycle lane…avoid driving on it…”)
Murphy fails to disclose transmit a control command to the vehicle that increases sensitivity of a sensor of the vehicle to detect a person while traveling on the road other than the intrusion restricted road; determine, using a threshold value, a flow of people for each road according its size, visibility, past accident history; and adjust the threshold value to be a value lower than a predetermined value in nighttime as opposed to daytime. However, Matsumoto teaches the above limitations (see at least 0012, 0036, 0046, 0049, 0105-0106, “The sensitivity switching unit switches sensitivity for detecting the object in the detection unit on the basis of location information which is information around the moving body.(0005), “the “threshold value” corresponds to the sensitivity”). Further, examiner notes that any location road attribute could be stored in a database.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Murphy and include controlling the sensitivity and threshold of a detection sensor based on road attributes and time of day as taught by Matsumoto with a reasonable expectation of success because it improves the detection accuracy of an approaching object (Matsumoto 0005).
As per Claim 2, Murphy fails to disclose further acquire people flow information regarding flows of people along roads; and modify the travel route so as to avoid the road other than the intrusion restricted road in a case in which the travel route includes the road other than the intrusion restricted road and in a case in which the road other than the intrusion restricted road is expected to have [[a]]the flow of people greater than or equal to the threshold value. However, Matsumoto teaches the above limitation (see at least 0015, “Here, the location information refers to information on a traveling road and information including a situation around the traveling road such as weather, temperature, road information, surrounding facilities, stores, and events. This makes it possible to improve the detection accuracy of an approaching object.”). Examiner notes that high pedestrian events such as concerts and sporting events will have a higher people flow and therefore require a higher sensor sensitivity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Murphy and include controlling the sensitivity and threshold of a detection sensor based on road attributes and time of day as taught by Matsumoto with a reasonable expectation of success because it improves the detection accuracy of an approaching object (Matsumoto 0005).
As per Claim 3, Murphy fails to disclose wherein the travel plan further includes a travel time period, and the threshold value varies according to the travel time period and/or weather along the travel route during the travel time period. However, Matsumoto teaches the above limitation (see at least 0105, “road attribute but also information on a surrounding situation such as time, weather, presence or absence of an event (an athletic meet, a concert, or the like)…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Murphy and include controlling the sensitivity and threshold of a detection sensor based on road attributes and time of day as taught by Matsumoto with a reasonable expectation of success because it improves the detection accuracy of an approaching object (Matsumoto 0005).
As per Claim 4, Murphy discloses wherein even in a case in which the travel route includes the road other than the intrusion restricted road, the controller is further configured to allow a modified travel route to include the road other than the intrusion restricted road when by avoiding the road other than the intrusion restricted road, a condition specified in the travel plan is not satisfied (see at least 0139, Figs. 7-8, “the system 100 commands the vehicle to avoid driving on sidewalks, except to cross over in a driveway, alley, or other such legal area. The vehicle will only cross a sidewalk when the sidewalk crosses the path of certain types of roadways, such as when the vehicle enters or leaves a driveway or an alley. The database 101 may store the locations of sidewalks, roads, driveways, alleys and the like. The system 100 determines whether a sidewalk is present (step 801), and if no sidewalk is present, the system 100 allows the vehicle to drive normally (step 802). However, if a sidewalk is present, the system 100 determines whether an alternate path is available that does not cross the sidewalk (step 803). If an alternate path is available, the system 100 commands the vehicle to take the alternate path (step 804). However, if an alternate path is not available, the system 100 commands the vehicle to drive slowly across the sidewalk (step 805).”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fadey S Jabr whose telephone number is (571)272-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am to 4:oopm.
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, Fadey S Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
FADEY S. JABR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668