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 1-10 are pending in this application.
Claims 1 and 6-10 are presented as currently amended claims.
No claims are presented as original claims.
Claims 2-5 are presented as previously amended claims.
No claims are newly presented.
No claims are cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claims 6 and 9 contains contingent limitation modifying a method. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has previously held that “giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, ‘[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed’". (MPEP § 2111.04(II) quoting Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) at 10 (quotation omitted)). Consequently, the contingent limitations of method claims 6 and 9 have not been given patentable weight.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 2, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. New amendments to independent claims 1 and 6-10 recite “. . . without estimating self-positions of the movable apparatuses . . .” however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not seek to control a vehicle without any estimation of vehicle self-positions; consequently ”without estimating self-positions of the movable apparatuses” is indefinite.
While the recited limitations are provided the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of the prior art rejection below this term has been interpreted consistent with Applicant’s specification at ¶ 124. Where the self-position estimation is defined as either (1) “a method for movement control in which a marker is disposed in the rear part of the preceding movable apparatus and it moves forward in the direction of the marker using a marker recognition technology may be used. [or (2) in which self-position information is received from the preceding movable apparatus using communication between the movable apparatuses.” In other words, a self-position estimation of the movable apparatuses based on the distance to the vehicle most closely following ahead.
Claims 2-5 are rejected due to dependency on a previously rejected claim. Correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite Divide, calculate , determine , designate, designate , and determine. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the implementation is a generic application of an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well known and conventional in the art.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of representative claim 1 (see MPEP 2106.03):
Step 1: As an apparatus, the claim is directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A: Prong 1: Claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to:
a congestion degree calculation unit configured to divide a route acquired by the route information acquisition unit into a plurality of sections each having a predetermined distance and calculate a congestion degree indicating a density of movable apparatuses present within each of the sections based on a number of movable apparatuses scheduled to travel within the section at the same time; a following route planning unit configured to determine a following route plan based on the congestion degrees calculated by the congestion degree calculation unit, wherein, in determining the following route plan, the following route planning unit is configured to (i) designate sections with a congestion degree higher than a threshold as following-travel sections in which the movable apparatuses approach one another and move together with at least one of the movable apparatuses following another of the movable apparatuses without estimating self-positions of the movable apparatuses, and (ii) designate sections with a congestion degree lower than the threshold as autonomous-driving sections in which the movable apparatuses estimate the self-positions of the movable apparatuses and travel; and a control instruction determination unit configured to determine a control instruction with respect to each of the movable apparatuses in accordance with the following route plan determined by the following route planning unit.
These limitations recites a concept that falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. Dividing a route based on a determination of the density of traffic can be done mentally could be done in the human mind or with the aid of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). An akin example would be a driver leading a group of two vehicles to a scheduled event, and while waiting at a traffic signal observing heavy traffic ahead and determining a control instruction to accelerate more slowly and allowing a gap to develop ahead of him because of an understanding there is traffic ahead.
Step 2A: Prong 2: The Applicant does recite additional elements such as
(1) at least one processor or circuit but a generic computer or phone device could be used for implementation and this does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The at least one processor or circuit is claimed in such a way as to be generally linking to a particular technological environment without integration into a practical application.
While (2) “acquire information on a scheduled route of each of the plurality of movable apparatuses” may be part of a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), here the limitation is claimed as generally linking to a particular technological environment without integration into a practical application with no additional limitations. Furthermore, obtaining data for conducting a mental process is insignificant pre-solution activity because “the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).” MPEP § 2106.05(g). (1) Gathering data and (2) outputting data from the mental activity of merging knowledge is a required step that does not meaningful limit the judicial exception. Collecting destinations for routing operations would be required in any implementation of the claimed abstract idea. Consequently, even treated as an additional element, the element fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Similarly, (3) “determine a control instruction with respect to each of the plurality of movable apparatuses in accordance with a following route plan determined by the following route planning unit” can be part of a mental process as there is no positive control step and a human can determine a control instruction. Further, as above, even if treated as an additional element, the element is treated as generally linking to a particular technological environment without integration into a practical application with no specification. Finally, as described above with respect to data gathering, “the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).” MPEP § 2106.05(g). Here, outputting the results generally without a specific control step is mere post-solution data outputting.
Therefore the additional elements do not integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite an element or combination of elements that is unconventional or significantly more than its individual elements.
“[A]n ‘inventive concept’ is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. (MPEP § 2106.05 citing Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, at 72-73)). “Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” . (MPEP § 2106.05). The claim recites the additional elements including:
The additional elements: (1) “at least one processor or circuit or in the alternative”; (2) “acquire information on a scheduled route of each of the plurality of movable apparatuses” and (3) “determine a control instruction with respect to each of the plurality of movable apparatuses in accordance with the following route plan determined by the following route planning unit” similarly do not integrate the abstract idea into significantly more than abstract idea but rather would monopolize the abstract idea. These limitations are recited such that the Applicant is merely adding well understood and conventional in the art on how to apply the judicial exception.
(1) A processor or circuit is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art. (2) Acquire information on a scheduled route is mere pre-solution data gathering. (3) Determining a control instruction is claimed at an “apply level” and is well-known and conventional in the art.
Consequently, these limitations do not claim, recite or detail behavior beyond general description of these well know behaviors but rather are claimed at an “apply it” level of detail that does not meet the test for “significantly more” (MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) (see MPEP § 2106.05(f))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into significantly more than abstract idea but rather would monopolize the abstract idea.
Regarding the further claims:
Claim 2 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 because claim 2 is still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as it merely adds a specific input type to considering in the mental activity and does not include an extra solution activity or instructions on how to apply the abstract idea.
Claim 3 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 2 because claim 3 is still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as it merely adds a specific input type to considering in the mental activity and does not include an extra solution activity or instructions on how to apply the abstract idea.
Claim 4 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 because claim 4 is still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as it merely adds a specific output type to considering in the mental activity and does not include an extra solution activity or instructions on how to apply the abstract idea. In particular the limitation claims a unit determining a control instruction, not a positive control step.
Claim 5 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 because claim 5 is merely adds display of the output of the metal process as post-solution activity which functions as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Further independent claims 6-10 are rejected with parallel logic as applied to independent claim 1.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and have been rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 12307892 B2) in view of MacNeille (US 20180082590 A1) (the combination of which is referenced as “combination Jang” hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches an information processing device for planning routes of a plurality of movable apparatuses, the information processing device comprising:
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a route information acquisition unit (Jang: ¶ 061, Col. 11, Lns. 34-38; cloud-computing system in accordance with various embodiments described herein. At block 502, the system can receive trajectory data from a control vehicle. The trajectory data may comprise the data illustrated in FIG. 4. A trajectory can be established for each of a plurality of vehicles.) . . . a following route planning unit configured to determine a following route plan based on the congestion degrees calculated by the congestion degree calculation unit, (Jang: ¶ 092, Col. 16, Lns. 29-30; system can determine a plurality of stop-and-go waves based on a plurality of trajectories.) wherein, in determining the following route plan, the following route planning unit is configured to (i) designate sections (Jang: ¶ 091, Col. 16, Lns. 41-48; system can define a control zone based on the plurality of stop-and-go waves and the plurality of trajectories. As described above, this definition can comprise an enter and exit boundary as illustrated in FIG. 5B. The enter boundary can be registered as the upstream end point minus the distance of the maximum wavelength. The exit boundary can be determined based on the presence of bottlenecks.) with a congestion degree higher than a threshold as following-travel sections in which the movable apparatuses approach one another and move together with at least one of the movable apparatuses following another of the movable apparatuses without estimating self-positions of the movable apparatuses, (Jang: ¶ 085, Col. 14, Ln. 66 – Col. 15, Ln. 12; bottlenecks have a fixed waiting time, such as stop-control intersections, highway tolls, parking tolls, and rubbernecking. This means that every vehicle waits the same amount of time before being discharged from the bottleneck (i.e. three seconds at a stop-controlled intersection). The cycle time in these situations can be the sum of the delay time, i.e. the time it takes for the next vehicle to arrive after the first vehicle departs, and the waiting time, i.e. the time the vehicle processes at the bottleneck before departure. These time periods can be estimated from real-time or historical trajectory data or by infrastructure detectors such as ramp detectors, traffic signal detectors, etc. Further examples of these can include loop detectors, cameras, and roadside units.) and (ii) designate sections with a congestion degree lower than the threshold as autonomous-driving sections in which the movable apparatuses estimate the self-positions of the movable apparatuses and travel; (Jang: ¶ 087, Col. 15, Lns. 20-28; data can be obtained from a plurality of connected vehicles (e.g. vehicles 500 and 501 in FIG. 5B). For example, the control vehicle can detect the trajectory of a preceding vehicle using gap detection sensors. These sensors can determine the distance between the control vehicle and the preceding vehicle as the control vehicle moves through the control zone.) and a control instruction determination unit configured to determine a control instruction with respect to each of the movable apparatuses in accordance with the following route plan determined by the following route planning unit. (Jang: ¶ 108, Col. 19, Lns. 40-44;system can operate the control vehicle in accordance with the control zone and the predicted deceleration profiles. As described above, the control vehicle can implement mitigation strategies based on the control zone and the deceleration profiles.)
To the extent Jang is silent about or does not teach: configured to acquire information on a scheduled route of each of the movable apparatuses; a congestion degree calculation unit configured to divide a route acquired by the route information acquisition unit into a plurality of sections each having a predetermined distance and calculate a congestion degree based on a number of movable apparatuses scheduled to travel within the section at the same time; MacNeille does teach:
A system in which a processor divides a route acquired by the route scheduling information acquisition unit (MacNeille: ¶ 029; CACC modules 108 exchange information to determine target locations for each of the participating cooperative vehicles 100 and target speeds for the participating cooperative vehicles 100 to reach their corresponding target location at substantially the same time.) into a plurality of sections including a traffic cataract (MacNeille: ¶ 028; module 108 detects the traffic cataract 200 by . . . receiving a message from another cooperative vehicle 100 or an infrastructure-based beacon that includes the location and direction of the traffic cataract)and a pre-cataract (MacNeille: ¶ 035; determines that the traffic cataract 200 is ahead of the cooperative vehicle) and post-cataract area (MacNeille: [906]) and uses a density of vehicles in each section to calculate a degree of congestion in each section.(MacNeille: ¶ 045; module 108 determines the location of the traffic cataract)(MacNeille: ¶ 019; Synchronous flow may transition into a traffic jam when the density of traffic increases and the speed of the traffic flow decreases. For example, for a few miles before the traffic cataract, the traffic may transition from free flow to synchronous flow. In such an example, right before the traffic cataract, the traffic may transition from synchronous flow to a traffic jam.)
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested: configured to acquire information on a scheduled route of each of the movable apparatuses; a congestion degree calculation unit configured to divide a route acquired by the route information acquisition unit into a plurality of sections each having a predetermined distance and calculate a congestion degree based on a number of movable apparatuses scheduled to travel within the section at the same time
because a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a traffic density calculation over a given distance is merely a count of vehicles divided by the given distance and is a simple proxy for ‘a number of movable apparatuses scheduled to travel within the section at the same time’ and that the predefined distance is merely the difference between the start and end of the traffic cataract. Furthermore, Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of MacNeille with the teachings of Jang because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “better group flow rate depends on moving vehicles through the traffic cataract.” (MacNeille: ¶ 018).
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Jang teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Jang further teaches:
further comprising a display unit configured to output at least one of information related to following route determined by the following route planning unit and control instruction information with respect to each of the movable apparatuses determined by the control instruction determination unit to a display device. (Jang: ¶ 092, Col. 16, Lns. 30-33; a trajectory can be established for each of a plurality of vehicles. This trajectory data can be used for map formation, where the map can display a particular vehicle's position or velocity over time.)( Jang: ¶ 111, Col. 20, Lns. 16-18; computing component 900 may represent, for example, computing or processing capabilities found within a self-adjusting display)
Regarding claim 6, Jang teaches a control method for:
an information processing device that plans routes of a plurality of movable apparatuses, the control method comprising (Jang: ¶ 061, Col. 11, Lns. 34-38; cloud-computing system in accordance with various embodiments described herein. At block 502, the system can receive trajectory data from a control vehicle. The trajectory data may comprise the data illustrated in FIG. 4. A trajectory can be established for each of a plurality of vehicles.) . . . determining a following route plan based on the congestion degrees, (Jang: ¶ 092, Col. 16, Lns. 29-30; system can determine a plurality of stop-and-go waves based on a plurality of trajectories.) wherein (i) sections (Jang: ¶ 091, Col. 16, Lns. 41-48; system can define a control zone based on the plurality of stop-and-go waves and the plurality of trajectories. As described above, this definition can comprise an enter and exit boundary as illustrated in FIG. 5B. The enter boundary can be registered as the upstream end point minus the distance of the maximum wavelength. The exit boundary can be determined based on the presence of bottlenecks.) with a congestion degree higher than a threshold are designated as following-travel sections in which the movable apparatuses approach one another and move together with at least one of the movable apparatuses following another of the movable apparatuses without estimating self- positions of the movable apparatuses, (Jang: ¶ 085, Col. 14, Ln. 66 – Col. 15, Ln. 12; bottlenecks have a fixed waiting time, such as stop-control intersections, highway tolls, parking tolls, and rubbernecking. This means that every vehicle waits the same amount of time before being discharged from the bottleneck (i.e. three seconds at a stop-controlled intersection). The cycle time in these situations can be the sum of the delay time, i.e. the time it takes for the next vehicle to arrive after the first vehicle departs, and the waiting time, i.e. the time the vehicle processes at the bottleneck before departure. These time periods can be estimated from real-time or historical trajectory data or by infrastructure detectors such as ramp detectors, traffic signal detectors, etc. Further examples of these can include loop detectors, cameras, and roadside units.) and (ii) sections with a congestion degree lower than the threshold are designated as autonomous-driving sections in which the movable apparatuses estimate the self-positions of the movable apparatuses and travel; (Jang: ¶ 087, Col. 15, Lns. 20-28; data can be obtained from a plurality of connected vehicles (e.g. vehicles 500 and 501 in FIG. 5B). For example, the control vehicle can detect the trajectory of a preceding vehicle using gap detection sensors. These sensors can determine the distance between the control vehicle and the preceding vehicle as the control vehicle moves through the control zone.) and determining a control instruction with respect to each of the movable apparatuses in accordance with the following route plan. (Jang: ¶ 108, Col. 19, Lns. 40-44;system can operate the control vehicle in accordance with the control zone and the predicted deceleration profiles. As described above, the control vehicle can implement mitigation strategies based on the control zone and the deceleration profiles.)
To the extent Jang is silent about or does not teach: acquiring information on a scheduled route of each of the movable apparatuses; dividing a route acquired in the route information acquiring into a plurality of sections each having a predetermined distance; calculating a congestion degree based on a number of movable apparatuses scheduled to travel within the section at the same time; MacNeille does teach:
A system in which a processor divides a route acquired by the route scheduling information acquisition unit (MacNeille: ¶ 029; CACC modules 108 exchange information to determine target locations for each of the participating cooperative vehicles 100 and target speeds for the participating cooperative vehicles 100 to reach their corresponding target location at substantially the same time.) into a plurality of sections including a traffic cataract (MacNeille: ¶ 028; module 108 detects the traffic cataract 200 by . . . receiving a message from another cooperative vehicle 100 or an infrastructure-based beacon that includes the location and direction of the traffic cataract)and a pre-cataract (MacNeille: ¶ 035; determines that the traffic cataract 200 is ahead of the cooperative vehicle) and post-cataract area (MacNeille: [906]) and uses a density of vehicles in each section to calculate a degree of congestion in each section.(MacNeille: ¶ 045; module 108 determines the location of the traffic cataract)(MacNeille: ¶ 019; Synchronous flow may transition into a traffic jam when the density of traffic increases and the speed of the traffic flow decreases. For example, for a few miles before the traffic cataract, the traffic may transition from free flow to synchronous flow. In such an example, right before the traffic cataract, the traffic may transition from synchronous flow to a traffic jam.)
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested: acquiring information on a scheduled route of each of the movable apparatuses; dividing a route acquired in the route information acquiring into a plurality of sections each having a predetermined distance; calculating a congestion degree based on a number of movable apparatuses scheduled to travel within the section at the same time;
because a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a traffic density calculation over a given distance is merely a count of vehicles divided by the given distance and is a simple proxy for ‘a number of movable apparatuses scheduled to travel within the section at the same time’ and that the predefined distance is merely the difference between the start and end of the traffic cataract. Furthermore, Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of MacNeille with the teachings of Jang because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “better group flow rate depends on moving vehicles through the traffic cataract.” (MacNeille: ¶ 018).
Regarding claim 7, Jang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to:
store a computer program comprising instructions for executing a control method for an information processing device planning that plans routes of a plurality of movable apparatuses and including following processes: (Jang: ¶ 061, Col. 11, Lns. 34-38; cloud-computing system in accordance with various embodiments described herein. At block 502, the system can receive trajectory data from a control vehicle. The trajectory data may comprise the data illustrated in FIG. 4. A trajectory can be established for each of a plurality of vehicles.) . . . determining a following route plan based on the congestion degrees, (Jang: ¶ 092, Col. 16, Lns. 29-30; system can determine a plurality of stop-and-go waves based on a plurality of trajectories.) wherein (i) sections (Jang: ¶ 091, Col. 16, Lns. 41-48; system can define a control zone based on the plurality of stop-and-go waves and the plurality of trajectories. As described above, this definition can comprise an enter and exit boundary as illustrated in FIG. 5B. The enter boundary can be registered as the upstream end point minus the distance of the maximum wavelength. The exit boundary can be determined based on the presence of bottlenecks.) with a congestion degree higher than a threshold are designated as following-travel sections in which the movable apparatuses approach one another and move together with at least one of the movable apparatuses following another of the movable apparatuses without estimating self- positions of the movable apparatuses, (Jang: ¶ 085, Col. 14, Ln. 66 – Col. 15, Ln. 12; bottlenecks have a fixed waiting time, such as stop-control intersections, highway tolls, parking tolls, and rubbernecking. This means that every vehicle waits the same amount of time before being discharged from the bottleneck (i.e. three seconds at a stop-controlled intersection). The cycle time in these situations can be the sum of the delay time, i.e. the time it takes for the next vehicle to arrive after the first vehicle departs, and the waiting time, i.e. the time the vehicle processes at the bottleneck before departure. These time periods can be estimated from real-time or historical trajectory data or by infrastructure detectors such as ramp detectors, traffic signal detectors, etc. Further examples of these can include loop detectors, cameras, and roadside units.) and (ii) sections with a congestion degree lower than the threshold are designated as autonomous-driving sections in which the movable apparatuses estimate the self-positions of the movable apparatuses and travel; (Jang: ¶ 087, Col. 15, Lns. 20-28; data can be obtained from a plurality of connected vehicles (e.g. vehicles 500 and 501 in FIG. 5B). For example, the control vehicle can detect the trajectory of a preceding vehicle using gap detection sensors. These sensors can determine the distance between the control vehicle and the preceding vehicle as the control vehicle moves through the control zone.) and determining a control instruction with respect to each of the movable apparatuses in accordance with the following route plan. (Jang: ¶ 108, Col. 19, Lns. 40-44;system can operate the control vehicle in accordance with the control zone and the predicted deceleration profiles. As described above, the control vehicle can implement mitigation strategies based on the control zone and the deceleration profiles.)
To the extent Jang is silent about or does not teach: acquiring information on a scheduled route of each of the movable apparatuses; dividing a route acquired in the route information acquiring into a plurality of sections each having a predetermined distance; calculating a congestion degree based on a number of movable apparatuses scheduled to travel within the section at the same time; MacNeille does teach:
A system in which a processor divides a route acquired by the route scheduling information acquisition unit (MacNeille: ¶ 029; CACC modules 108 exchange information to determine target locations for each of the participating cooperative vehicles 100 and target speeds for the participating cooperative vehicles 100 to reach their corresponding target location at substantially the same time.) into a plurality of sections including a traffic cataract (MacNeille: ¶ 028; module 108 detects the traffic cataract 200 by . . . receiving a message from another cooperative vehicle 100 or an infrastructure-based beacon that includes the location and direction of the traffic cataract)and a pre-cataract (MacNeille: ¶ 035; determines that the traffic cataract 200 is ahead of the cooperative vehicle) and post-cataract area (MacNeille: [906]) and uses a density of vehicles in each section to calculate a degree of congestion in each section.(MacNeille: ¶ 045; module 108 determines the location of the traffic cataract)(MacNeille: ¶ 019; Synchronous flow may transition into a traffic jam when the density of traffic increases and the speed of the traffic flow decreases. For example, for a few miles before the traffic cataract, the traffic may transition from free flow to synchronous flow. In such an example, right before the traffic cataract, the traffic may transition from synchronous flow to a traffic jam.)
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested: acquiring information on a scheduled route of each of the movable apparatuses; dividing a route acquired in the route information acquiring into a plurality of sections each having a predetermined distance; calculating a congestion degree based on a number of movable apparatuses scheduled to travel within the section at the same time;
because a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a traffic density calculation over a given distance is merely a count of vehicles divided by the given distance and is a simple proxy for ‘a number of movable apparatuses scheduled to travel within the section at the same time’ and that the predefined distance is merely the difference between the start and end of the traffic cataract. Furthermore, Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of MacNeille with the teachings of Jang because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “better group flow rate depends on moving vehicles through the traffic cataract.” (MacNeille: ¶ 018).
Regarding claim 8, Jang teaches an information processing device for planning routes of a plurality of movable apparatuses, the information processing device comprising:
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a route information acquisition unit configured to acquire information (Jang: ¶ 061, Col. 11, Lns. 34-38; cloud-computing system in accordance with various embodiments described herein. At block 502, the system can receive trajectory data from a control vehicle. The trajectory data may comprise the data illustrated in FIG. 4. A trajectory can be established for each of a plurality of vehicles.) . . . a following route planning unit configured to determine a following route plan, wherein, in determining the following route plan, the following route planning unit designates, a common-route section estimated by the common-route estimation unit as a following-travel section (Jang: ¶ 092, Col. 16, Lns. 29-30; system can determine a plurality of stop-and-go waves based on a plurality of trajectories.) (Jang: ¶ 091, Col. 16, Lns. 41-48; system can define a control zone based on the plurality of stop-and-go waves and the plurality of trajectories. As described above, this definition can comprise an enter and exit boundary as illustrated in FIG. 5B. The enter boundary can be registered as the upstream end point minus the distance of the maximum wavelength. The exit boundary can be determined based on the presence of bottlenecks.) in which a movable apparatus follows another movable apparatus without estimating a self-position of the movable apparatus, (Jang: ¶ 085, Col. 14, Ln. 66 – Col. 15, Ln. 12; bottlenecks have a fixed waiting time, such as stop-control intersections, highway tolls, parking tolls, and rubbernecking. This means that every vehicle waits the same amount of time before being discharged from the bottleneck (i.e. three seconds at a stop-controlled intersection). The cycle time in these situations can be the sum of the delay time, i.e. the time it takes for the next vehicle to arrive after the first vehicle departs, and the waiting time, i.e. the time the vehicle processes at the bottleneck before departure. These time periods can be estimated from real-time or historical trajectory data or by infrastructure detectors such as ramp detectors, traffic signal detectors, etc. Further examples of these can include loop detectors, cameras, and roadside units.) and the following route planning unit determines whether to perform following-travel or autonomous-driving in which the movable apparatus estimates the self-position of the movable apparatus and travels; (Jang: ¶ 087, Col. 15, Lns. 20-28; data can be obtained from a plurality of connected vehicles (e.g. vehicles 500 and 501 in FIG. 5B). For example, the control vehicle can detect the trajectory of a preceding vehicle using gap detection sensors. These sensors can determine the distance between the control vehicle and the preceding vehicle as the control vehicle moves through the control zone.) and a control instruction determination unit configured to determine a control instruction with respect to each of movable apparatuses in accordance with the following route plan determined by the following route planning unit. (Jang: ¶ 108, Col. 19, Lns. 40-44;system can operate the control vehicle in accordance with the control zone and the predicted deceleration profiles. As described above, the control vehicle can implement mitigation strategies based on the control zone and the deceleration profiles.)
To the extent Jang is silent about or does not teach: on a scheduled route of each movable apparatus of the plurality of movable apparatuses; a common route estimation unit configured to, on the basis of a route acquired by the route information acquisition unit, perform area dividing based on at least one of a start
position and a destination position and estimate a route section through which each of the movable apparatuses commonly passes for each divided area; MacNeille does teach:
A system in which a processor divides a route acquired by the route scheduling information acquisition unit (MacNeille: ¶ 029; CACC modules 108 exchange information to determine target locations for each of the participating cooperative vehicles 100 and target speeds for the participating cooperative vehicles 100 to reach their corresponding target location at substantially the same time.) into a plurality of sections including a traffic cataract (MacNeille: ¶ 028; module 108 detects the traffic cataract 200 by . . . receiving a message from another cooperative vehicle 100 or an infrastructure-based beacon that includes the location and direction of the traffic cataract)and a pre-cataract (MacNeille: ¶ 035; determines that the traffic cataract 200 is ahead of the cooperative vehicle) and post-cataract area (MacNeille: [906]) and uses a density of vehicles in each section to calculate a degree of congestion in each section.(MacNeille: ¶ 045; module 108 determines the location of the traffic cataract)(MacNeille: ¶ 019; Synchronous flow may transition into a traffic jam when the density of traffic increases and the speed of the traffic flow decreases. For example, for a few miles before the traffic cataract, the traffic may transition from free flow to synchronous flow. In such an example, right before the traffic cataract, the traffic may transition from synchronous flow to a traffic jam.)
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested: on a scheduled route of each movable apparatus of the plurality of movable apparatuses; a common route estimation unit configured to, on the basis of a route acquired by the route information acquisition unit, perform area dividing based on at least one of a start position and a destination position and estimate a route section through which each of the movable apparatuses commonly passes for each divided area;
because a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that MacNeille is dividing the route into sections designated as control zones defined as pre-traffic, experiencing-traffic, and post-traffic and applying differing control schedules to each of the common-travel vehicles. Furthermore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of MacNeille with the teachings of Jang because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “better group flow rate depends on moving vehicles through the traffic cataract.” (MacNeille: ¶ 018).
Regarding claim 9, Jang teaches a control method for:
an information processing device that plans routes of a plurality of movable apparatuses, the control method comprising: route information acquiring of acquiring information (Jang: ¶ 061, Col. 11, Lns. 34-38; cloud-computing system in accordance with various embodiments described herein. At block 502, the system can receive trajectory data from a control vehicle. The trajectory data may comprise the data illustrated in FIG. 4. A trajectory can be established for each of a plurality of vehicles.) . . . following route planning of designating, as a following-travel section in which a movable apparatus follows another movable apparatus, a common-route section estimated by the common-route estimation unit (Jang: ¶ 092, Col. 16, Lns. 29-30; system can determine a plurality of stop-and-go waves based on a plurality of trajectories.) (Jang: ¶ 091, Col. 16, Lns. 41-48; system can define a control zone based on the plurality of stop-and-go waves and the plurality of trajectories. As described above, this definition can comprise an enter and exit boundary as illustrated in FIG. 5B. The enter boundary can be registered as the upstream end point minus the distance of the maximum wavelength. The exit boundary can be determined based on the presence of bottlenecks.) without estimating a self-position of the movable apparatus, (Jang: ¶ 085, Col. 14, Ln. 66 – Col. 15, Ln. 12; bottlenecks have a fixed waiting time, such as stop-control intersections, highway tolls, parking tolls, and rubbernecking. This means that every vehicle waits the same amount of time before being discharged from the bottleneck (i.e. three seconds at a stop-controlled intersection). The cycle time in these situations can be the sum of the delay time, i.e. the time it takes for the next vehicle to arrive after the first vehicle departs, and the waiting time, i.e. the time the vehicle processes at the bottleneck before departure. These time periods can be estimated from real-time or historical trajectory data or by infrastructure detectors such as ramp detectors, traffic signal detectors, etc. Further examples of these can include loop detectors, cameras, and roadside units.) and to determine whether to perform following-travel or autonomous-driving in which the movable apparatus estimates the self-position of the movable apparatus and travels; and (Jang: ¶ 087, Col. 15, Lns. 20-28; data can be obtained from a plurality of connected vehicles (e.g. vehicles 500 and 501 in FIG. 5B). For example, the control vehicle can detect the trajectory of a preceding vehicle using gap detection sensors. These sensors can determine the distance between the control vehicle and the preceding vehicle as the control vehicle moves through the control zone.) control instruction determining of determining a control instruction with respect to each of the plurality of movable apparatuses in accordance with a following route plan determined in the following route planning. (Jang: ¶ 108, Col. 19, Lns. 40-44;system can operate the control vehicle in accordance with the control zone and the predicted deceleration profiles. As described above, the control vehicle can implement mitigation strategies based on the control zone and the deceleration profiles.)
To the extent Jang is silent about or does not teach: on a scheduled route of each movable apparatus of the plurality of movable apparatuses; common route estimating, on the basis of a route acquired in the route information acquiring, of performing area dividing based on at least one of a start position and a destination position and estimating a route section through which each of the plurality of movable apparatuses commonly passes for each divided area; MacNeille does teach:
A system in which a processor divides a route acquired by the route scheduling information acquisition unit (MacNeille: ¶ 029; CACC modules 108 exchange information to determine target locations for each of the participating cooperative vehicles 100 and target speeds for the participating cooperative vehicles 100 to reach their corresponding target location at substantially the same time.) into a plurality of sections including a traffic cataract (MacNeille: ¶ 028; module 108 detects the traffic cataract 200 by . . . receiving a message from another cooperative vehicle 100 or an infrastructure-based beacon that includes the location and direction of the traffic cataract)and a pre-cataract (MacNeille: ¶ 035; determines that the traffic cataract 200 is ahead of the cooperative vehicle) and post-cataract area (MacNeille: [906]) and uses a density of vehicles in each section to calculate a degree of congestion in each section.(MacNeille: ¶ 045; module 108 determines the location of the traffic cataract)(MacNeille: ¶ 019; Synchronous flow may transition into a traffic jam when the density of traffic increases and the speed of the traffic flow decreases. For example, for a few miles before the traffic cataract, the traffic may transition from free flow to synchronous flow. In such an example, right before the traffic cataract, the traffic may transition from synchronous flow to a traffic jam.)
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested: on a scheduled route of each movable apparatus of the plurality of movable apparatuses; common route estimating, on the basis of a route acquired in the route information acquiring, of performing area dividing based on at least one of a start position and a destination position and estimating a route section through which each of the plurality of movable apparatuses commonly passes for each divided area
because a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that MacNeille is dividing the route into sections designated as control zones defined as pre-traffic, experiencing-traffic, and post-traffic and applying differing control schedules to each of the common-travel vehicles. Furthermore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of MacNeille with the teachings of Jang because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “better group flow rate depends on moving vehicles through the traffic cataract.” (MacNeille: ¶ 018).
Regarding claim 10, Jang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to:
store a computer program comprising instructions for executing a control method for an information processing device that plans routes of a plurality of movable apparatuses and including following processes: (Jang: ¶ 061, Col. 11, Lns. 34-38; cloud-computing system in accordance with various embodiments described herein. At block 502, the system can receive trajectory data from a control vehicle. The trajectory data may comprise the data illustrated in FIG. 4. A trajectory can be established for each of a plurality of vehicles.) . . . determining a following route plan based on the congestion degrees, (Jang: ¶ 092, Col. 16, Lns. 29-30; system can determine a plurality of stop-and-go waves based on a plurality of trajectories.) wherein (i) sections (Jang: ¶ 091, Col. 16, Lns. 41-48; system can define a control zone based on the plurality of stop-and-go waves and the plurality of trajectories. As described above, this definition can comprise an enter and exit boundary as illustrated in FIG. 5B. The enter boundary can be registered as the upstream end point minus the distance of the maximum wavelength. The exit boundary can be determined based on the presence of bottlenecks.) with a congestion degree higher than a threshold are designated as following-travel sections in which the movable apparatuses approach one another and move together with at least one of the movable apparatuses following another of the movable apparatuses without estimating self- positions of the movable apparatuses, (Jang: ¶ 085, Col. 14, Ln. 66 – Col. 15, Ln. 12; bottlenecks have a fixed waiting time, such as stop-control intersections, highway tolls, parking tolls, and rubbernecking. This means that every vehicle waits the same amount of time before being discharged from the bottleneck (i.e. three seconds at a stop-controlled intersection). The cycle time in these situations can be the sum of the delay time, i.e. the time it takes for the next vehicle to arrive after the first vehicle departs, and the waiting time, i.e. the time the vehicle processes at the bottleneck before departure. These time periods can be estimated from real-time or historical trajectory data or by infrastructure detectors such as ramp detectors, traffic signal detectors, etc. Further examples of these can include loop detectors, cameras, and roadside units.) and (ii) sections with a congestion degree lower than the threshold are designated as autonomous-driving sections in which the movable apparatuses estimate the self-positions of the movable apparatuses and travel; (Jang: ¶ 087, Col. 15, Lns. 20-28; data can be obtained from a plurality of connected vehicles (e.g. vehicles 500 and 501 in FIG. 5B). For example, the control vehicle can detect the trajectory of a preceding vehicle using gap detection sensors. These sensors can determine the distance between the control vehicle and the preceding vehicle as the control vehicle moves through the control zone.) and determining a control instruction with respect to each of the movable apparatuses in accordance with the following route plan. (Jang: ¶ 108, Col. 19, Lns. 40-44;system can operate the control vehicle in accordance with the control zone and the predicted deceleration profiles. As described above, the control vehicle can implement mitigation strategies based on the control zone and the deceleration profiles.)
To the extent Jang is silent about or does not teach: route information acquiring of acquiring information on a scheduled route of each movable apparatus of the plurality of movable apparatuses; common route estimating, on the basis of a route acquired in the route information acquiring, of performing area dividing based on at least one of a start position and a destination position and estimating a route section through which each of the plurality of movable apparatuses commonly passes for each divided area; MacNeille does teach:
A system in which a processor divides a route acquired by the route scheduling information acquisition unit (MacNeille: ¶ 029; CACC modules 108 exchange information to determine target locations for each of the participating cooperative vehicles 100 and target speeds for the participating cooperative vehicles 100 to reach their corresponding target location at substantially the same time.) into a plurality of sections including a traffic cataract (MacNeille: ¶ 028; module 108 detects the traffic cataract 200 by . . . receiving a message from another cooperative vehicle 100 or an infrastructure-based beacon that includes the location and direction of the traffic cataract)and a pre-cataract (MacNeille: ¶ 035; determines that the traffic cataract 200 is ahead of the cooperative vehicle) and post-cataract area (MacNeille: [906]) and uses a density of vehicles in each section to calculate a degree of congestion in each section.(MacNeille: ¶ 045; module 108 determines the location of the traffic cataract)(MacNeille: ¶ 019; Synchronous flow may transition into a traffic jam when the density of traffic increases and the speed of the traffic flow decreases. For example, for a few miles before the traffic cataract, the traffic may transition from free flow to synchronous flow. In such an example, right before the traffic cataract, the traffic may transition from synchronous flow to a traffic jam.)
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested: route information acquiring of acquiring information on a scheduled route of each movable apparatus of the plurality of movable apparatuses; common route estimating, on the basis of a route acquired in the route information acquiring, of performing area dividing based on at least one of a start position and a destination position and estimating a route section through which each of the plurality of movable apparatuses commonly passes for each divided area;
because a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that MacNeille is dividing the route into sections designated as control zones defined as pre-traffic, experiencing-traffic, and post-traffic and applying differing control schedules to each of the common-travel vehicles. Furthermore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of MacNeille with the teachings of Jang because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “better group flow rate depends on moving vehicles through the traffic cataract.” (MacNeille: ¶ 018).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Jang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of in Kliemann (US 20190392091 A1).
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Jang teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Jang does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: an attribute classification unit configured to classify and group each of the movable apparatuses by an attribute thereof, wherein the following route planning unit determines whether or not to perform following route in convoy for each of the groups classified by the attribute classification unit and a following-travel section; however, Kliemann does teach:
further comprising: an attribute classification unit configured to classify and group each of the plurality of movable apparatuses by an attribute thereof, (Kliemann: ¶ 051; platoon organization 430 can be chosen based on parameters of the vehicle, selected parameters, the platoon simulation 425, or combinations thereof. The platoon formation module 330 can create a variety of vehicle arrangements for the platoon. Then, the vehicle arrangements are run in a platoon simulation 425 to determine which ones provide the maximum benefit based on the cumulative travel benefits and one or more selected benefits.) (Kliemann: ¶ 034; vehicle simulation can consider one or more characteristics about the vehicle) wherein the following route planning unit determines whether or not to perform following route in convoy for each of the groups classified by the attribute classification unit and a following-travel section. (Kliemann: ¶ 049; benefit determination module 320 receives the vehicle data 402 and the environmental data 404 and determines the cumulative travel benefits for the vehicles 500. At this point, the platoon apportioning system 170 or the benefit determination module 320 can determine that vehicles 500f and 500g are not possible members of the group.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kliemann with the teachings of Jang because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “achieve at least a portion of the one or more cumulative travel benefits . . . include determining a benefit distribution of the cumulative travel benefits for the platoon organization.” (Kliemann: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Jang in view of Kliemann teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. MacNeille teaches:
wherein the attribute includes at least one of a destination position in a route of each of the movable apparatuses, (MacNeille: ¶ 029; CACC modules 108 exchange information to determine target locations for each of the participating cooperative vehicles 100 and target speeds for the participating cooperative vehicles 100 to reach their corresponding target location at substantially the same time.)
And Kliemann further teaches: a traveling speed of each of the movable apparatuses, (Kliemann: ¶¶ 034-035; the vehicle simulation can determine expectations of vehicle wear, fuel usage, maximum driving speed, load capacity and other factors which may be affected or may affect the vehicle as part of the platoon [which the] platoon formation module 330 can generally include [in] instructions that function to control the processor 110 to define a platoon organization [which] can include vehicle positioning and order, inter-vehicle distance, platoon speed, lane-level positioning, and other attributes.) and a size of each of the movable apparatuses. (Kliemann: ¶ 019; Using a variety of different parameters, such as vehicle weight, EPA estimated fuel economy, vehicle wear, or others, the systems and methods can then apportion the total benefit among the vehicles)
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Jang teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Jang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the control instruction determination unit determines at least one of a traveling speed, a distance interval with respect to a preceding movable apparatus, and a measurement parameter of a sensor mounted in the movable apparatus with respect to a movable apparatus performing following route within the following route section; however, Kliemann does teach:
wherein the control instruction determination unit determines at least one of a traveling speed, a distance interval with respect to a preceding movable apparatus, (Kliemann: ¶ 035; platoon organization can include vehicle positioning and order, inter-vehicle distance, platoon speed, lane-level positioning, and other attributes. The platoon organization can include changes to the platoon which are expected at one or more portions of the route, such as vehicles entering or exiting, order changes, or others.) and a measurement parameter of a sensor mounted in the movable apparatus with respect to a movable apparatus performing following route within the following route section. (Kliemann: ¶ 059; can access one or more systems of the platoon-capable vehicle in determining vehicle parameters or environment parameters, such as the sensor system 120 or the vehicle systems)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kliemann with the teachings of Jang because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “achieve at least a portion of the one or more cumulative travel benefits . . . include determining a benefit distribution of the cumulative travel benefits for the platoon organization.” (Kliemann: ¶ 005).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied claim objection is persuasive and the objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument that:
Applicant respectfully traverses the Office Action's finding that Section 112(f) is invoked. Claim 1 recites at least one processor or circuit configured to function as the recited units. Thus, the claims recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions, and Section 112(f) is not invoked. See MPEP § 2181. (Applicant’s Arguments filed September 15, 2025, pg. 10).
with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) claim interpretation is persuasive as MPEP § 2181(I)(A) requires that the:
[nonce] term is not required to denote a specific structure or a precise physical structure to avoid the application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See Watts, 232 F.3d at 880, 56 USPQ2d at 1838; Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 99 USPQ2d 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the claim terms "modernizing device" and "computing unit" when read in light of the specification connoted sufficient, definite structure to one of skill in the art to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).”).
and Applicant’s specification recites
[0044] The CPU 311 comprehensively controls each of the units connected to the system bus 320 by loading the program according to the present embodiment stored in the ROM 312 or the external memory 314 into the RAM 313 and executing it.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is not persuasive. Applicant argues:
the claims are directed to a specific technological improvement in controlling physical movable apparatuses, not merely a mental process. Claim 1 recites "a control instruction determination unit configured to determine a control instruction with respect to each of the plurality of movable apparatuses in accordance with a following route plan determined by the following route planning unit." This control instruction is not merely a mental determination-it is a technological output that directly controls the physical behavior of movable apparatuses. (Applicant’s Arguments filed Jan. 2, 2026, pg. 9).
Applicant’s claims do not directly control physical movable apparatuses, they determine a command that once executed control a physical moveable apparatus. A human can mentally determine a command that once executed control a physical moveable apparatus. For example, a human can mentally determine the physical actions required to control a vehicle, such as thinking how much to turn a steering wheel. However, a human cannot mentally control the car. Applicant’s claims are most analogous to the former example as they recite “. . . determine a control instruction with respect to each of the movable apparatuses . . ..” Applicant further argues:
A human mind cannot cause physical vehicles to switch between these operational modes. See August 4, 2025 Memorandum to Technology Centers 2100, 2600, and 3600 from Charles Kim, Deputy Commissioner for Patents ("The mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind."). (Applicant’s Arguments filed Jan. 2, 2026, pg. 10).
While a human mind cannot cause physical vehicles to switch between operational modes, neither can determining a command. Only commanding physical hardware can cause physical vehicles to switch between operational modes and the claims do not recite a step of “controlling” or “commanding” a physical system, they merely recite “determining”. Applicant continues:
The control instructions directly cause the movable apparatuses to physically operate in different modes-following-travel or autonomous-driving-which represents a tangible, real-world effect (Applicant’s Arguments filed Jan. 2, 2026, pg. 10).
The control instructions themselves do not directly cause the movable apparatuses to physically operate in different modes. Issuing those commands to a control unit or to physical structure cause the movable apparatuses to physically operate in different modes. However, the claims do not recite commanding such control instructions. The claims only recite determining those control instructions. Determining control instructions is not a direct control step, but rather the step prior to the direct control step.
In conclusion, while controlling vehicles may integrate a claimed invention into a practical application -- determining a control instruction is a mental process that occurs before controlling an apparatuses and therefore does not meet the test for integration into a practical application. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive and the rejection is reapplied.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 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. Applicant argues that
Zhang does not teach or suggest "a following route planning unit configured to determine a following route plan based on the congestion degrees calculated by the congestion degree calculation unit, wherein, in determining the following route plan, the following rout planning unit is configured to (i) designate sections with a congestion degree higher than a threshold as following-travel sections in which the movable apparatuses approach one another and move together with at least one of the moveable apparatuses following another of the movable apparatuses, and (ii) designate sections with a congestion degree lower than the threshold as autonomous-driving sections" as recited in claim 1 and as analogously recited in claims 6 and 7. (Applicant’s Arguments filed September 15, 2025, pgs. 13-14).
Newly applied art Jang (US 12307892 B2) teaches a system in which, depending on the existence of congestion determined by identifying “stop and go” traffic, applies one of 5 different mechanism of controlling vehicle behavior. In one of these methods, Jang relies on inter-vehicle distance determined by a sensor, or “in which the movable apparatus estimates the self-position of the movable apparatus and travels.” In a another of the control approaches, Jang applies road sensor data in determining an appropriate control scheme, or in other words “a movable apparatus follows another movable apparatus, a common-route section estimated by the common-route estimation unit without estimating a self-position of the movable apparatus.”
The phrase, ”without estimating self-positions of the movable apparatuses” is being interpreted consistent with Applicant’s specification at ¶ 124 where the self-position estimation is defined as either (1) “a method for movement control in which a marker is disposed in the rear part of the preceding movable apparatus and it moves forward in the direction of the marker using a marker recognition technology may be used. [or (2)] in which self-position information is received from the preceding movable apparatus using communication between the movable apparatuses.” In other words, a self-position estimation of the movable apparatuses based on the distance to the vehicle most closely following ahead. Jang’s teaching of using road sensors is not either approach.
The newly amended limitation has been rejected under 112(b) because it is unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art how a vehicle would be controlled without any estimating of the self-positions of the movable apparatuses.
Jang determines control zones based on “stop and go traffic” not “based on a number of movable apparatuses scheduled to travel within the section at the same time;” however, newly applied art MacNeille (US 20180082590 A1) teaches a system that determines a location of a “traffic cataract” by assessing where traffic “flow may transition into a traffic jam when the density of traffic increases” (MacNeille: ¶ 019). MacNeille further gives an example of a range of ‘normal’ and irregular freeway flows in an hourly context (MacNeille: ¶ 018). When this density increase is observed, MacNeille identifies the “cataract” and implements platooning as controlled by participating vehicles acting as traffic “marshals” (MacNeille: ¶ 027-030). Finally, MacNeille teaches that once the density of the traffic reduces below the threshold, platooning is ended (MacNeille: ¶ 031). MacNeille’s teaching of considering density and initiating a platoon function would teach or suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art the claimed limitation of “a congestion degree calculation unit configured to divide a route acquired by the route information acquisition unit into a plurality of sections each having a predetermined distance and calculate a congestion degree(MacNeille: ¶ 019; Synchronous flow may transition into a traffic jam when the density of traffic increases and the speed of the traffic flow decreases.) is merely a traffic count expressed with respect to linear distance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Tarkiainen et al. (US 20220178705 A1) which discloses a system in which a device may communicate to the platoon a suggested platoon size, a maximum number of vehicles allowed for a platoon, or a platoon configuration restriction. A platoon may be split into two platoons, if available, before entering a city.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663