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
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment for application number 18/488,051 received on 06/05/2025.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, and 4-8 are amended. Claims 1, and 4-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicants claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Regarding the objection to the title of the invention, upon review of amended title, the objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the §101 rejections previously applied to the original claims, upon review of the amended claims, the rejections are maintained.
Regarding the §103 rejections previously applied to the original claims, upon review of the amended claims, the rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments – Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 8-11) with respect to the §101 rejections previously applied to claims 1-5 are primarily raised in support of the amendments to independent claim 1, and dependent claims 4-8. The amendments and supporting arguments are believed to be fully addressed in the updated §101 rejections below.
Response to §103 arguments – Regarding applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 11-13) with respect to the §103 rejection of original claims 1-5, these have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The original claim 2 recited limitations to acquire information that is a candidate point for improvement on the first autonomous driving system by comparing the first data and the second data to identify a point of divergence. Pinkus discloses using sensors to measure changes in the environment of for hire vehicles in order to determine if remedial action should be taken. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider remedial action as a mechanism to drive improvement in the service, including improvements to comfort, which Pinkus discloses at par. [0024] (monitoring the choices and behaviors of drivers of FHVs that may impact the safety and comfort of passengers). Furthermore, Pinkus discloses using wait times as a contributor to a ride’s comfort (see Pars. 53-55, where Pinkus discloses that different comfort levels will have different wait times). Moreover, the amendments to claim 1 modify the language of previously submitted claim 2 such that the evaluation index in no longer related to ride comfort, and the point for improvement is specifically related to the autonomous driving system’s acceleration. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained and reworded to accompany the amended claim language in the §103 rejection below.
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, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of those findings is provided below, as further set forth in MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03
Claims 1, and 4-8 are directed to an information processing apparatus (i.e., Item of Manufacture), Therefore, claims 1, and 4-8 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04
Independent claim 1 recites a method for defining advancement of agricultural products in breeding. As drafted, the limitations recited by claim 1 fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Claim 1 recites an information processing apparatus comprising a controller, a communications interface, and a database, with limitations for:
the controller being configured to: acquire questionnaire data including a score for each autonomous driving system installed in each vehicle among a plurality of vehicles operated by autonomous driving along a predetermined operation route to store the questionnaire data in the database as an aggregate result, the score being an evaluation index of ride comfort of each vehicle; (But for the additional elements recited in the claim limitation – underlined – to be analyzed under steps 2A, prong 2, and 2B, the step to “acquire questionnaire data” can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, when considered as an additional element, the “acquire” step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.);
retrieve the aggregate result of the questionnaire data from the database and identify, based on the aggregate result of the questionnaire data, a vehicle, from among the plurality of vehicles, for which the score is determined to be less than a first threshold as a first vehicle; (But for the additional elements recited in the claim limitation – underlined – to be analyzed under steps 2A, prong 2, and 2B, the step to “retrieve the aggregate result of the questionnaire data” can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, when considered as an additional element, the “retrieve” step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.);
retrieve, via the communication interface from the first vehicle, first vehicle information and extract first acceleration data to be used in analyzing ride comfort from the first vehicle information, the first vehicle information being acquired by a first autonomous driving system, which is an autonomous driving system installed in the first vehicle; (But for the additional elements recited in the claim limitation – underlined – to be analyzed under steps 2A, prong 2, and 2B, the step to “retrieve first vehicle information” can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, when considered as an additional element, the “retrieve” step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.);
identify, based on the aggregate result of the questionnaire data, a vehicle from among the plurality of vehicles, for which the score is determined to be equal to or greater than a second threshold as a second vehicle, the second threshold being equal to or greater than the first threshold; (The step to “identify” can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
retrieve, via the communication interface from the second vehicle, second vehicle information and extract second acceleration data to be used in analyzing ride comfort from the second vehicle information, the second vehicle information being acquired by a second autonomous driving system, which is an autonomous driving system installed in the second vehicle; and (But for the additional elements recited in the claim limitation – underlined – to be analyzed under steps 2A, prong 2, and 2B, the step to “retrieve second vehicle information” can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, when considered as an additional element, the “retrieve” step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.);
acquire improvement information that is a candidate point for improvement on the first autonomous driving system by comparing the first acceleration data and the second acceleration data to identify a point of divergence between the first acceleration data and the second acceleration data, (The step to “acquire improvement information” can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, when considered as an additional element, the “acquire” step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.);
wherein the improvement information is provided to a developer of the first autonomous driving system. (The step where “information is provided to a developer” can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, when considered as an additional element, the “provided to a developer” step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as post-solution activity.);
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B recited by independent claim 1 are: controller, database, and communication interface.
Dependent claims 4-8 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce any additional elements for consideration under said steps. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract ideas as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
Step 2A, Prong 2: An evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely controller, database, and communication interface from the independent claim, these additional elements have been evaluated but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 4-8 recite the same abstract ideas (“Mental Processes”) as the independent claim along with further steps/details falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself, along with the same or substantially same generic computing element addressed.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for "inventive concept." See MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely controller, database, and communication interface from the independent claim, these additional element(s) has/have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements (computer hardware) or instructions/software (engine) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment, the internet, online) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s specification recites the computing additional elements at a high level of generality, such as in the following sections/paragraphs of the specification: [0028] The controller 18 includes at least one processor, at least one programmable circuit, at least one dedicated circuit, or a combination of these. The processor is a general purpose processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) or a graphics processing unit (GPU), or a dedicated processor that is dedicated to specific processing, for example, but is not limited to these.; [0039] Although the database is constructed in the memory 22 here, the database may be constructed in an external storage and connected to the information processing apparatus 20.; [0032] The communication interface 21 includes at least one communication interface for connecting to the network 30. The communication interface may be compliant with, for example, mobile communication standards, wired local area network (LAN) standards, or wireless LAN standards, but these examples are not limiting. Furthermore, even if the acquire, retrieve, and information is provided steps are interpreted as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, such extra-solution activity has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 4-8 recite the same abstract ideas as the independent claims along with further steps/details falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself, along with the same or substantially same generic computing element addressed above under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, which is incorporated herein.
The ordered combination of elements in the claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiga et al. (US 20200094845 A1, hereinafter “Shiga”), in view of Itoh (US 20210390535 A1, hereinafter “Itoh”), in further view of Pinkus (US 20130066688 A1, hereinafter “Pinkus”).
Regarding Claim 1: Shiga teaches an information processing apparatus ([0012] The driving evaluation apparatus preferably further includes a memory, and the processor preferably stores the reply in the memory in association with information regarding the type or version of an automatic driving control module that is installed in the vehicle and performs automatic driving control on the vehicle.) comprising:
a controller, ([0068] The memory 204 has a recording medium such as an HDD (hard disk drive), an optical recording medium, or a semiconductor memory, and stores computer programs to be executed by the controller 205.);
communication interface, ([0067] The internal communication I/F 203 is a communication I/F circuit through which the vehicle-mounted device 20 communicates with other vehicle-mounted devices of the vehicle 2 via the in-vehicle network.);
the controller being configured to: acquire questionnaire data (Fig. 10: S1002 Send query predetermined time prior to arrival, S1005 Send query to mobile terminal, S1007 Store received query in memory; [0091] When the time difference between the present time and the expected arrival time becomes less than a predetermined time, the communication control unit 304 sends a signal for displaying a query for evaluating the driving of the vehicle 2 on the vehicle-mounted device 20 or the mobile terminal 40, to the vehicle-mounted device 20 or the mobile terminal 40 (step S1002). The signal for displaying the query may include the content of the query to be displayed on the vehicle-mounted device 20 or the mobile terminal 40.; [0096] Conversely, when the notification regarding the exit of the passenger 4 from the vehicle 2 is received before a reply is received from the vehicle-mounted device 20 or the mobile terminal 40 (YES in step S1004), the communication control unit 304 determines that a reply to the query from the passenger 4 has not been obtained. The communication control unit 304 further sends a signal for displaying a query for evaluating the driving of the vehicle 2 on the mobile terminal 40, to the mobile terminal 40 carried by the passenger 4 who has exited the vehicle 2 (step S1005).; [0098] Conversely, when a reply to the query from the passenger 4 has been received from the vehicle-mounted device 20 or the mobile terminal 40 (YES in step S1003 or YES in step S1006), the communication control unit 304 stores the received reply in the memory 302 (step S1007). The communication control unit 304 then ends the communication control process.);
including a score for each autonomous driving system installed in each vehicle among a plurality of vehicles operated by autonomous driving along a predetermined operation route to store the questionnaire data in the database as an aggregate result, the score being an evaluation index of ride comfort of each vehicle; ([0108] The evaluation unit 305 calculates, for example, the ratio of “YES” (the column A in the table below) as to each query, as shown in the table below, and the arithmetic mean of the calculated ratios of “YES” of all the queries may be calculated as an evaluation value; [0111] the driving of the vehicle that is under automatic driving control can be evaluated based on the ride comfort of the vehicle experienced by the passenger.);
retrieve, via the communication interface from the first vehicle, first vehicle information and extract first acceleration data to be used in analyzing ride comfort from the first vehicle information, the first vehicle information being acquired by a first autonomous driving system, which is an autonomous driving system installed in the first vehicle; ([0057] Query 2 relates to whether or not acceleration at the time of starting the vehicle 2 was smooth; [0060] Query 4: “Was the vehicle's speed appropriate?”; [0107] the evaluation unit 305 of the controller 303 statistically processes data of the result of the reply to the query for evaluating the driving of the vehicle 2, which is stored in the memory 302 by the communication control unit 304 each time the passenger 4 uses the vehicle 2, in order to evaluate the driving of the vehicle 2 that is under automatic driving control. A human may evaluate the driving of the vehicle 2 that is under automatic driving control, based on the data of the result of the reply to the query for evaluating the driving of the vehicle 2 stored in the memory 302.);
retrieve, via the communication interface from the second vehicle, second vehicle information and extract second acceleration data to be used in analyzing ride comfort from the second vehicle information, the second vehicle information being acquired by a second autonomous driving system, which is an autonomous driving system installed in the second vehicle; and ([0027] As described above, the driving of vehicles that are under automatic driving control is preferably evaluated based on the ride comfort of the vehicles actually experienced by passengers.; [0107] the evaluation unit 305 of the controller 303 statistically processes data of the result of the reply to the query for evaluating the driving of the vehicle 2, which is stored in the memory 302 by the communication control unit 304 each time the passenger 4 uses the vehicle 2, in order to evaluate the driving of the vehicle 2 that is under automatic driving control. A human may evaluate the driving of the vehicle 2 that is under automatic driving control, based on the data of the result of the reply to the query for evaluating the driving of the vehicle 2 stored in the memory 302.);
wherein the improvement information is provided to a developer of the first autonomous driving system. ([0032] the performance and function of the automatic driving control module 21 can be optimized in accordance with the mobility service offered by the vehicle 2.; [0004] The performance and function of the automatic driving control can be easily updated, as compared to the driving techniques of human drivers, based on evaluations of the driving of the vehicles, in order to further improve the ride comfort of the vehicles experienced by passengers.);
However, Shiga doesn’t teach:
and a database,
retrieve the aggregate result of the questionnaire data from the database and identify, based on the aggregate result of the questionnaire data, a vehicle, from among the plurality of vehicles, for which the score is determined to be less than a first threshold as a first vehicle;
identify, based on the aggregate result of the questionnaire data, a vehicle from among the plurality of vehicles, for which the score is determined to be equal to or greater than a second threshold as a second vehicle, the second threshold being equal to or greater than the first threshold;
acquire improvement information that is a candidate point for improvement on the first autonomous driving system by comparing the first acceleration data and the second acceleration data to identify a point of divergence between the first acceleration data and the second acceleration data,
Itoh teaches:
and a database, ([0056] The vehicle allocation scheduling server 12 manages allocation of vehicles by collecting various pieces of information about allocation of vehicles and storing the information as a database.);
retrieve the aggregate result of the questionnaire data from the database and identify, based on the aggregate result of the questionnaire data, a vehicle, from among the plurality of vehicles… ([0056] The vehicle allocation scheduling server 12, for example, receives vehicle allocation request information for transporting a transport object, for example, a person or an article, from a pre-registered user and creates a vehicle allocation schedule, and then distributes the created vehicle allocation schedule to a vehicle to be allocated. The vehicle allocation scheduling server 12 manages allocation of vehicles by collecting various pieces of information about allocation of vehicles and storing the information as a database. Examples of the various pieces of information to be stored include information collected from users, and vehicle information collected from vehicles. Examples of the information collected from users include user data, a purpose of use, booking data (including a point of dispatch that is a transport source, a point of destination that is a transport destination, desired dispatch date and time, and the like), cancellation history (cancellation dates and times, and the like), questionnaire result (satisfaction rating), and the like.);
identify, based on the aggregate result of the questionnaire data, a vehicle from among the plurality of vehicles… ([0056] The vehicle allocation scheduling server 12, for example, receives vehicle allocation request information for transporting a transport object, for example, a person or an article, from a pre-registered user and creates a vehicle allocation schedule, and then distributes the created vehicle allocation schedule to a vehicle to be allocated. The vehicle allocation scheduling server 12 manages allocation of vehicles by collecting various pieces of information about allocation of vehicles and storing the information as a database. Examples of the various pieces of information to be stored include information collected from users, and vehicle information collected from vehicles. Examples of the information collected from users include user data, a purpose of use, booking data (including a point of dispatch that is a transport source, a point of destination that is a transport destination, desired dispatch date and time, and the like), cancellation history (cancellation dates and times, and the like), questionnaire result (satisfaction rating), and the like.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Shiga with Itoh’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to receive a vehicle allocation service provided by the vehicle allocation scheduling server 12 (Itoh; [0058]). By incorporating the teachings of Itoh, one would’ve been able to identify vehicles to be allocated.
Shiga and Itoh don’t teach:
…for which the score is determined to be less than a first threshold as a first vehicle;
…for which the score is determined to be equal to or greater than a second threshold as a second vehicle, the second threshold being equal to or greater than the first threshold;
acquire improvement information that is a candidate point for improvement on the first autonomous driving system by comparing the first acceleration data and the second acceleration data to identify a point of divergence between the first acceleration data and the second acceleration data,
Pinkus teaches:
…for which the score is determined to be less than a first threshold as a first vehicle; ([0050] a business may be able to set risk level thresholds and/or driver input event severity levels so that it may provide safe, comfortable and convenient transportation options to its customers.; [0025] A driver input event may also be, for example, an interior temperature reading of the FHV that is higher than a high temperature threshold, or lower than low temperature threshold, which may be indicative of the driver's decision making with respect to passenger comfort or fuel economy.);
…for which the score is determined to be equal to or greater than a second threshold as a second vehicle, the second threshold being equal to or greater than the first threshold; ([0050] a business may be able to set risk level thresholds and/or driver input event severity levels so that it may provide safe, comfortable and convenient transportation options to its customers.; [0025] A driver input event may also be, for example, an interior temperature reading of the FHV that is higher than a high temperature threshold, or lower than low temperature threshold, which may be indicative of the driver's decision making with respect to passenger comfort or fuel economy.);
acquire improvement information that is a candidate point for improvement on the first autonomous driving system by comparing the first acceleration data and the second acceleration data to identify a point of divergence between the first acceleration data and the second acceleration data, ([0005] Other embodiments may include sensor data that comprises an indication of, among other things, the acceleration of the for-hire vehicle, the interior temperature of the for-hire vehicle, the sound level in the interior of the for-hire vehicle, or the presence of smoke inside the for-hire vehicle.; [0042] To determine whether a remedial action should be taken, the event manager 102 may compare the aggregate severity level to a threshold.; [0085] the sensor manger may compare the detected value to the boundary value to determine if a driver input event should be recorded. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret a remedial action as a point for improvement, the detected value as the first data, and the boundary value as the second data in order to determine if remediation (or improvement) is needed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Shiga and Itoh with Pinkus’ features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to determine an estimated wait time for each comfort level offered to the potential passenger thereby advantageously allowing the passenger to make a decision balancing the trade-off of wait time versus comfort. (Pinkus; [0054]). By incorporating the teachings of Pinkus, one would’ve been able to use thresholds to make decisions.
Regarding Claim 4: Shiga further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to extract the first acceleration data, from the first vehicle information acquired by the first autonomous driving system, by excluding acceleration data for a period in which the first vehicle was driven manually. ([0057] Query 2 relates to whether or not acceleration at the time of starting the vehicle 2 was smooth; [0060] Query 4: “Was the vehicle's speed appropriate?”; [0107] the evaluation unit 305 of the controller 303 statistically processes data of the result of the reply to the query for evaluating the driving of the vehicle 2, which is stored in the memory 302 by the communication control unit 304 each time the passenger 4 uses the vehicle 2, in order to evaluate the driving of the vehicle 2 that is under automatic driving control.
Regarding Claim 5: Shiga further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to extract the first acceleration data, from the first vehicle information acquired by the first autonomous driving system, by excluding acceleration data for a period in which the first vehicle avoided danger. ([0107] the evaluation unit 305 of the controller 303 statistically processes data of the result of the reply to the query for evaluating the driving of the vehicle 2, which is stored in the memory 302 by the communication control unit 304 each time the passenger 4 uses the vehicle 2, in order to evaluate the driving of the vehicle 2 that is under automatic driving control.);
Regarding Claim 6: Shiga doesn’t teach:
wherein the controller is further configured to identify a data point for which a deviation between the first acceleration data and the second acceleration data at a same position on the predetermined operation route is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, as the point of divergence.
Pinkus teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to identify a data point for which a deviation between the first acceleration data and the second acceleration data at a same position on the predetermined operation route is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, as the point of divergence. ([0032] The sensor manager 101 may receive all changes in acceleration from the sensor. It may then determine which changes in acceleration are significant enough to generate a driver input event; [0070] Once the sensor manager 101 receives the sensor data 401, it may extract and interpret the data. For example, if the sensor manager 101 determines that the sensor data 401 is significant enough to warrant the generation of a driver input event, it may generate it and send it to the event manager 103 at step 2. The sensor manager 101 may determine that the sensor data 401 is significant based on configuration data that defines acceptable and unacceptable sensor data values.; [0025] A driver input event may also be, for example, an interior temperature reading of the FHV that is higher than a high temperature threshold, or lower than low temperature threshold, which may be indicative of the driver's decision making with respect to passenger comfort or fuel economy. Driver input events may also be related to collisions, interior sound levels, presence of smoke, presence of foul odors, breaking frequency, or fare paths (e.g., the route from passenger pick-up to passenger drop-off), for example.; Fig. 8A: 810 – Excessive Acceleration, Short Stop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Shiga, Itoh and Pinkus with Pinkus’ additional features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so, so the data resulting from the event analysis may flow to different computing systems depending on the embodiment or the remedial action that has been defined for monitoring driver behavior (Pinkus; [0072]). By incorporating the teachings of Pinkus, one would’ve been able to use acceleration as a contributor to comfort.
Regarding Claim 7: Shiga doesn’t teach:
wherein the controller is further configured to: identify a time at which the datapoint has been acquired and a corresponding position on the predetermined operation route; and
acquire information associating the identified time and corresponding position with the point of divergence, as the improvement information that is the candidate point for improvement on the first autonomous driving system.
Pinkus further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to: identify a time at which the datapoint has been acquired and a corresponding position on the predetermined operation route; and ([0035] the vehicle control system may provide a velocity at time=t1, and a velocity at time=t2);
acquire information associating the identified time and corresponding position with the point of divergence, as the improvement information that is the candidate point for improvement on the first autonomous driving system. ([0032] The sensor manager 101 may receive all changes in acceleration from the sensor. It may then determine which changes in acceleration are significant enough to generate a driver input event; [0035] the vehicle control system may provide a velocity at time=t1, and a velocity at time=t2); ([0046] The engagement authorizer 103 may, for example, request the driver's risk level from the event manager 102 and compare it to the current risk level threshold for the current location of the FHV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Shiga, Itoh and Pinkus with Pinkus’ additional features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to determine the current location of the FHV by using an attached GPS module (Pinkus; [0046]). By incorporating the teachings of Pinkus, one would’ve been able to associate vehicle location with vehicle acceleration.
Regarding Claim 8: Shiga doesn’t teach:
wherein the first acceleration data includes a magnitude of fluctuation in acceleration of the first vehicle or a frequency of fluctuation in acceleration per unit time of the first vehicle, and
the second acceleration data includes a magnitude of fluctuation in acceleration of the second vehicle or a frequency of fluctuation in acceleration per unit time of the second vehicle.
Pinkus further teaches:
wherein the first acceleration data includes a magnitude of fluctuation in acceleration of the first vehicle or a frequency of fluctuation in acceleration per unit time of the first vehicle, and ([0069] For example, if the sensor data 401 relates to an acceleration sensor, it may include data such as the detected velocity at first time and a detected velocity and a later, second time. The data may also include an acceleration value. [0071] The analysis may include assigning a severity level to the received driver input event.);
the second acceleration data includes a magnitude of fluctuation in acceleration of the second vehicle or a frequency of fluctuation in acceleration per unit time of the second vehicle. ([0050] more than one venue computer system 300 may be in communication with more than one FHV (for hire vehicle) 100; [0071] The analysis may include assigning a severity level to the received driver input event.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Shiga, Itoh and Pinkus with Pinkus’ additional features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to monitor or control drivers of FHVs (Pinkus; [0050]). By incorporating the teachings of Pinkus, one would’ve been able to determine the magnitude of the fluctuations in acceleration to inform decisions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
A. Genser, P. Nitsche and A. Kouvelas, "Identification of critical ride comfort sections by use of a validated vehicle model and Monte Carlo simulations," 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), Auckland, New Zealand, 2019, pp. 1644-1649
M. Elbanhawi, M. Simic and R. Jazar, "In the Passenger Seat: Investigating Ride Comfort Measures in Autonomous Cars," in IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 4-17, Fall 2015
Bertollini et al. (Doc. ID: US 20190344783 A1 | Date of Publication: 11/14/2019), which discloses a processor-implemented path planning method in a vehicle.
Kato et al. (Doc. ID: JP 2020052468 A | Date of Publication: 04/02/2020), which discloses a drive evaluation device, drive evaluation system, drive evaluation method, and drive evaluation computer program.
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 GABRIEL J TORRES CHANZA whose telephone number is (571)272-3701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)270-5389. 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.
/G.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/TIMOTHY PADOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625