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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 09/23/2025. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are pending. Claims 4 has been cancelled. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended. Claims 7-8 have been added. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter which have been considered and addressed as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites the limitation of “the controller is further configured to execute: a travel route communication process that communicates the target route to the target mobility and causes the target mobility to display the target route on a map displayed on a display of the target mobility”. The specification fails to describe this limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (US 20120078572) in view of Giovanardi (US 20220281456) and Orlov (US 20210331713).
Regarding claim 1, Bando teaches an operation management system (Fig. 1) configured to communicate with a plurality of registered mobilities (par. 18 Fig. 1, Vehicle 101) to manage operations of the plurality of registered mobilities (par. 19, “there are similar plural vehicles and that the vehicles are communicating with the central unit 109”), each of which is configured to obtain positional information thereof (par. 18, “position-posture measuring portion 102 for measuring the current position (coordinates) and the posture of the body of the vehicle in motion”), the operation management system comprising:
a storage device that stores specification information including information on a position of a tire of each of the registered mobilities and map information including information on a type of a road surface (Fig. 1, all vehicle sensor information database (DB) 112, all vehicle specification database (DB) 114, currently measured road surface condition map 116, and road surface condition map 118);
and a controller including one or more processors (Fig. 1, central unit 109), wherein the controller is configured to execute:
a position obtaining process in which the controller obtains the positional information from each of the registered mobilities (par. 18, “position-posture measuring portion 102 for measuring the current position (coordinates) and the posture of the body of the vehicle in motion”; par. 21, “The central unit 109 has a receiver 110 receiving information from the plural vehicles 101, a vehicle information acquisition portion 111 for obtaining vehicle motion information”);
a correlating process in which the controller correlates each of the registered mobilities that transmits the positional information and the specification information stored in the storage device with each other (par. 21, “vehicle motion information (i.e., data about a vehicle ID intrinsic to each vehicle”—a vehicle ID is used to correlate the information with the corresponding vehicle);
a travel-history storing process in which the controller stores, in the storage device, a traveled route which is a travel history of each of the registered mobilities, so as to be correlated with the map information based on the positional information (par. 21, “an all vehicle trajectory database (DB) 113 for causing positional data included in the vehicle motion information about the plural vehicles obtained by the vehicle information acquisition portion 111 to be stored in a time sequential order”);
a road-surface-condition obtaining process in which the controller i) calculates a road surface condition including a position and a shape of a rut that corresponds to the traveled route based on information on a detection value of a sensor installed on each of the registered mobilities (par. 22, “vehicle model undulation estimating portion 115 for calculating the amount of undulation of a road surface along which a vehicle has traveled from positional information included in the vehicle motion information about each vehicle obtained by the vehicle information acquisition portion 111 and also from the sensor data”), (par. 21, “an all vehicle specification database (DB) 114 in which dimension information (such as vehicle width and total length) about every vehicle to be managed is stored”), and the traveled route (par. 22, “vehicle information acquisition portion 111 for obtaining vehicle motion information (i.e., data about a vehicle ID intrinsic to each vehicle, the position, the orientation of travel, speed of travel of the vehicle, and the instants at which these pieces of data were obtained)”) and ii) stores, in the storage device, the road surface condition so as to be correlated with the map information (par. 22, “a road surface condition map 118 including a database of road surface conditions in which the undulations due to the ruts estimated by the rut estimating portion 117 are reflected”),
and a target route calculating process in which the controller calculates a target route, along which a target mobility is capable of traveling, based on the positional information of the target mobility, a destination of the target mobility, and the road surface condition stored in the storage device, the target mobility being any one of the plurality of registered mobilities for which the target route is to be set, wherein the target mobility performs automated driving based on the target route (par. 20, “The information that the vehicle 101 receives from the central unit 109 indicates the road surface conditions of the route to be followed by the vehicle. Based on the information, the vehicle controller 107 controls the acceleration or deceleration, manipulates the steering wheel, and performs other operations”).
Bando fails to teach the road-surface-condition obtaining process in which the controller calculates a road surface condition including a position and a shape of a rut that corresponds to the traveled route based on the type of the road surface included in the map information.
However, Giovanardi teaches the road-surface-condition obtaining process in which the controller calculates a road surface condition including a position and a shape of a rut that corresponds to the traveled route based on the type of the road surface included in the map information (par. 328, “In some instances, road surface friction estimations may also be created based on models that incorporate information on environmental factors. Environmental factors may include, but are not limited to, atmospheric temperature, road surface temperature, humidity, wind speed, daylight, time, precipitation intensity, accumulative precipitation, road surface water layer thickness, road surface snow layer thickness, road surface ice layer thickness, traffic, road type, road class, road roughness, road slope, etc.”).
Bando and Giovanardi are analogous art because both are related to controlling a vehicle based on the road surface condition.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bando to incorporate the teachings of Giovanardi. Bando states “It is considered that an amount of variation of undulation due to a single run of the vehicle depends on the hardness of the road and other factors. In the present invention, it is assumed that the hardness of the road is constant throughout all the areas” (par. 51). It is obvious that Bando is aware the hardness of the road would affect the rut size, and that they merely decided to simplify their invention by not considering it. Giovanardi shows that considering road types for mapping out terrains for purposes of route planning is well known in the art, as road types can affect the way vehicles are driven (par. 326). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Bando to include considering the road type when calculating the rut size.
Bando and Giovanardi both fail to teach the shape of the rut including (i) a height of a first protrusion, (ii) a height of a second protrusion, and (iii) a depth of a recess between the first protrusion and the second protrusion.
However, Orlov teaches the shape of the rut including (i) a height of a first protrusion, (ii) a height of a second protrusion, and (iii) a depth of a recess between the first protrusion and the second protrusion (par. 160 and Fig. 5, “upon detecting the presence of road ruts 450 on the current road 404, the electronic device 210 may be configured to determine the depth of the road ruts on the current road 404 based on at least one of (i) the depths of the pair of current grooves 502, and (ii) the height of the covariation peak 560”).
The combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi, and Orlov are analogous art because both relate to controlling a vehicle based on the presence and severity of ruts.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi to incorporate the teachings of Orlov in order to decrease the risk of collision or losing control by avoiding uneven terrain (par. 13 and 17).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi and Orlov teaches the operation management system according to claim 1. Bando further teaches the controller calculates, in the road-surface-condition obtaining process, the position and the shape of the rut for a selected registered mobility that is a selected one of the plurality of registered mobilities (par. 28-29 Fig. 6 rut estimating portion 117), wherein the controller calculates the position of the rut based on:
the traveled route of the selected mobility (par. 28, “A vehicle behavior estimating portion 603 obtains the body weight of each vehicle, speed of travel, and angular speed sensor output or orientation of travel from the all vehicle sensor information database 112…and estimates the motion behavior of each vehicle such as straight movement, turn, and quick acceleration or deceleration from time-series data about the tire track positions produced by a tire track calculating portion 602”);
and the position of the tire of the selected registered mobility included in the specification information (par. 28, “estimates the motion behavior of each vehicle such as straight movement, turn, and quick acceleration or deceleration from time-series data about the tire track positions produced by a tire track calculating portion 602”), and wherein the controller calculates the shape of the rut based on:
lateral acceleration and a traveling speed of the selected registered mobility, each of which is the information on the detection value of the sensor installed on the selected registered mobility (par. 28, “A vehicle behavior estimating portion 603 obtains the body weight of each vehicle, speed of travel, and angular speed sensor output or orientation of travel from the all vehicle sensor information database 112,…and estimates the motion behavior of each vehicle such as straight movement, turn, and quick acceleration or deceleration”);
the traveled route of the selected registered mobility (par. 28, “estimates the motion behavior of each vehicle such as straight movement, turn, and quick acceleration or deceleration from time-series data about the tire track positions produced by a tire track calculating portion 602”);
and a mass of the selected registered mobility included in the specification information (par. 28, “A vehicle behavior estimating portion 603 obtains the body weight of each vehicle”).
Bando fails to teach the controller calculates the position of the rut based on the type of the road surface included in the map information, and wherein the controller calculates the shape of the rut based on the type of the road surface.
However, Giovanardi teaches the controller calculates the position of the rut based on the type of the road surface included in the map information, and wherein the controller calculates the shape of the rut based on the type of the road surface (par. 328, “In some instances, road surface friction estimations may also be created based on models that incorporate information on environmental factors. Environmental factors may include, but are not limited to, atmospheric temperature, road surface temperature, humidity, wind speed, daylight, time, precipitation intensity, accumulative precipitation, road surface water layer thickness, road surface snow layer thickness, road surface ice layer thickness, traffic, road type, road class, road roughness, road slope, etc.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi and Orlov to further incorporate the teachings of Giovanardi. Bando states “It is considered that an amount of variation of undulation due to a single run of the vehicle depends on the hardness of the road and other factors. In the present invention, it is assumed that the hardness of the road is constant throughout all the areas” (par. 51). It is obvious that Bando is aware the hardness of the road would affect the rut position and shape, and that they merely decided to simplify their invention by not considering it. Giovanardi shows that considering road types for mapping out terrains for purposes of route planning is well known in the art, as road types can affect the way vehicles are driven (par. 326). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Bando to include considering the road type when calculating the rut position and shape.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi and Orlov teaches the operation management system according to claim 1. Bando fails to teach in the road-surface-condition obtaining process, the controller calculates the road surface condition further based on weather information.
However, Giovanardi teaches the road-surface-condition obtaining process, the controller calculates the road surface condition further based on weather information (par. 328, “In some instances, road surface friction estimations may also be created based on models that incorporate information on environmental factors. Environmental factors may include, but are not limited to, atmospheric temperature, road surface temperature, humidity, wind speed, daylight, time, precipitation intensity, accumulative precipitation, road surface water layer thickness, road surface snow layer thickness, road surface ice layer thickness, traffic, road type, road class, road roughness, road slope, etc.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi and Orlov to further incorporate the teachings of Giovanardi. Bando states “It is considered that an amount of variation of undulation due to a single run of the vehicle depends on the hardness of the road and other factors. In the present invention, it is assumed that the hardness of the road is constant throughout all the areas” (par. 51). It is obvious that Bando is aware the hardness of the road would affect the rut size, and that they merely decided to simplify their invention by not considering it. Giovanardi shows that considering weather conditions for mapping out terrains for purposes of route planning is well known in the art, as weather can affect the way vehicles are driven (par. 326). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Bando to include considering the road type when calculating the rut size.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi and Orlov teaches operation management system according to claim 1. Bando further teaches the target mobility further performs the automated driving based on a traveling speed command received form the operation management system (par. 20, “The information that the vehicle 101 receives from the central unit 109 indicates the road surface conditions of the route to be followed by the vehicle. Based on the information, the vehicle controller 107 controls the acceleration or deceleration, manipulates the steering wheel, and performs other operations”).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando in view of Giovanardi and Orlov, and further in view of Hall (US 11285773).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi and Orlov teach the operation management system according to claim 1. Bando further teaches in the target route calculating process, the controller calculates the target route and a traveling condition of the target mobility based on a road surface frequency (par. 28, undulation amount), the road surface frequency being calculated based on unevenness of a road surface (par. 28, undulation due to ruts) and a traveling speed of the target mobility (par. 28, motional behavior of the vehicle) that travels on the road surface (par. 28, “An undulation amount estimating portion 604 estimates the amount of undulation due to ruts created by the vehicle from the undulation variation rate of the area corresponding to the motional behavior based on the estimated motional behavior of the vehicle”).
Bando, Giovanardi, and Orlov all fail to teach the controller calculates the target route and a traveling condition of the target mobility such that a road surface frequency is not higher than a predetermined threshold frequency.
However, Hall teaches the controller calculates the target route and a traveling condition of the target mobility such that a road surface frequency is not higher than a predetermined threshold frequency (column 11 line 1, “the vehicle 100 is operated at a different speed (e.g., faster or slower) than that at which resonance of the unsprung might be expected, such that force inputs to the unsprung mass from the road surface occur at a frequency other than that natural frequency of the unsprung mass. As a result, the speed of the vehicle 100 may be controlled according to both the roughness of the road surface and the natural frequency of the unsprung mass”).
Bando and Hall are analogous art because both are related to controlling a vehicle based on road conditions.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi and Orlov to incorporate the teachings of Hall to add the road surface frequency is not higher than a predetermined threshold frequency. Hall states “Resonance of the unsprung may be expected to be more likely to occur when the vehicle 100 is driven at certain speeds (e.g., a small range of speeds) over the road surface having a certain roughness (e.g., having a general roughness characterization or having a specific roughness characterization, as described above). At such speeds in such conditions, the wheel hop damper (e.g., the reaction mass actuator 250 or the tuned mass damper) may have insufficient capacity to dampen such road input forces arising from the roughness” (column 10 line 59).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi, Orlov, and Hall teach the operation management system according to claim 5.
Bando, Giovanardi, and Orlov all fail to teach the threshold frequency is set to a value not higher than a natural frequency of an unsprung portion of the target mobility.
However, Hall teaches the threshold frequency is set to a value not higher than a natural frequency of an unsprung portion of the target mobility (column 11 line 1, “the vehicle 100 is operated at a different speed (e.g., faster or slower) than that at which resonance of the unsprung might be expected, such that force inputs to the unsprung mass from the road surface occur at a frequency other than that natural frequency of the unsprung mass. As a result, the speed of the vehicle 100 may be controlled according to both the roughness of the road surface and the natural frequency of the unsprung mass”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi, Orlov, and Hall to further incorporate the teachings of Hall to add the threshold frequency is set to a value not higher than a natural frequency of an unsprung portion of the target mobility. Hall states “Resonance of the unsprung may be expected to be more likely to occur when the vehicle 100 is driven at certain speeds (e.g., a small range of speeds) over the road surface having a certain roughness (e.g., having a general roughness characterization or having a specific roughness characterization, as described above). At such speeds in such conditions, the wheel hop damper (e.g., the reaction mass actuator 250 or the tuned mass damper) may have insufficient capacity to dampen such road input forces arising from the roughness” (column 10 line 59).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando in view of Giovanardi and Orlov, and further in view of Szybalski (US 8818610).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi and Orlov operation management system according to claim 1. Bando, Giovanardi, and Orlov all fail to explicitly teach the controller is further configured to execute: a travel route communication process that communicates the target route to the target mobility and causes the target mobility to display the target route on a map displayed on a display of the target mobility.
However, Szybalski teaches the controller is further configured to execute: a travel route communication process that communicates the target route to the target mobility and causes the target mobility to display the target route on a map displayed on a display of the target mobility (abstract, “A control computer sends messages to the various systems of the vehicle in order to maneuver the vehicle safely to the destination. The control computer may display information on an electronic display in order to allow the passenger to understand what actions the vehicle may be taking in the immediate future”).
The combination of Bando in view of Giovanardi and Orlov, and Szybalski are analogous art because both relate the autonomous vehicles.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bando in view of Giovanardi and Orlov to incorporate the teachings of Szybalski, “In order to feel safe and confident, the operator may want to know what the vehicle is planning to do in the immediate future” (column 1 line 38).
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 MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/MINATO LEE HORNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665