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
This Office Action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/29/2025 for application number 18/592,895 filed on 03/08/2023, in which claims 1-10 were originally presented for examination.
Claims 1-10 are currently amended, and no new or cancelled claim(s) has/have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-035849, filed on 03/08/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 03/01/2024, 07/31/2024 & 11/08/2024 have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims 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 that, in preparing responses, the Applicant 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 12/29/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Interpretation under 35 USC §112(f): The interpretation of claim(s) under 35 USC §112(f), is/are withdrawn, as amended claim(s) filed on 12/29/2025 has/have overcome the Claim Interpretation under §112(f) recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 09/24/2025.
Regarding the Claim Objections: The claim(s) objection is/are withdrawn, as the amended claims filed on 12/29/2025 have properly addressed the claim(s) informality objection(s) recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 09/24/2025. However, applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of Claim(s) Objection(s) presented below.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §101: The rejections of claim(s) 1-10, for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, is/are maintained, as the amended claims filed on 12/29/20255 have failed to overcome the rejection as recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 09/24/2025. In addition, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection(s) under §101 presented below.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1): Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims 1, 2 & 8-10 as being clearly anticipated by the prior art of Sato are persuasive in view of the currently amended base claims 1 & 8-10. Accordingly, the previous prior art rejections under 35 USC §102 have been withdrawn.
Although the examiner does not necessarily agree with all/ some of applicant arguments, and in the interest of concluding the prosecution, a new reference is introduced to teach some of the amended limitations as outlined in the prior art rejections below. i.e., those arguments are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejections under 35 USC §103 outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, i.e., Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new rejections outlined below.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5 & 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “captured image;” in line 7. It should be “captured image; and”.
Claim 5 recites “recognition information” in line 9. It should be “recognized road shape”.
Claim 9 recites “A storage medium” in line 1. It should be “A ”. See rejection under §101 outlined below.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1. A moving object control system comprising:
a storage device that stores instructions; and at least one processor that executes the instructions to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]:
set a current position and a target position of a moving object [mental process/step];
generate a first path from the current position to the target position so as to satisfy a predetermined boundary condition on the lw coordinates in which a straight line connecting the current position and the target position of the moving object is defined as an l-axis and a straight line orthogonal to the l-axis is defined as a w-axis [mental process/step]; and
convert the generated first path into the xy coordinates in which an advancing direction of the moving object is defined as an x-axis and an axis orthogonal to the x-axis is defined as a y-axis [mental process/step].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim(s) recite system(s) or moving object/ computer unites, method/ program including at least one step. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of (1) set a current position and a target position of a moving object; (2) generate a first path from the current position to the target position so as to satisfy a predetermined boundary condition on the lw coordinates in which a straight line connecting the current position and the target position of the moving object is defined as an l-axis and a straight line orthogonal to the l-axis is defined as a w-axis; and (3) convert the generated first path into the xy coordinates in which an advancing direction of the moving object is defined as an x-axis and an axis orthogonal to the x-axis is defined as a y-axis.
These limitation(s) (1), (2) & (3), as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a “computer” (i.e., in claim 9). That is, other than reciting the said “computer”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer” language, the claim encompasses a person selecting destination position, generating a path to that destination from current position then its xy coordinates in mind, or by using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a computer in base claim 9 does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of (a) a storage device that stores instructions and (b) at least one processor that executes the instructions. The “storage device” and the “processor”, and/or the “computer” in claim 9, merely describes how to generally and merely automates the set, generate and convert steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/ or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a computer processor.
The (a) & (b) unite(s) or the computer(s) of the systems is/are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the set, generate and convert steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the unite(s) and/or computer(s) elements were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Specification (see at least PG Pub. ¶9) does not provide any indication that the unite(s) and/or computer(s) is/are anything other than a conventional computer to automate the mental steps, which is/are well‐understood, routine, and conventional function(s) when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion the computer unit(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent method, storage medium , and/or moving object claims 8, 9 & 10, respectively, recite similar limitations performed by the system of claim 1. Therefore, claims 8-10 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, claims 1-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim(s) 9 is/ are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim(s) 9 is/are directed to “A storage medium”, i.e. “Computer Readable Medium”. The claim does not recite, and the specification does not define, that the computer readable medium is limited to non-transitory embodiments. A claim encompassing both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, such as applicant’s claimed computer readable medium, does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen’s is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ … Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”).
The claim may be amended to avoid a rejection under 35 USC §101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would not raise the issue of new matter because the specification supports a claim drawn to at least one non-transitory embodiment.
Therefore, claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 USC §101 as being directed toward ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9 &10 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication No. JP-2001-306143-A by Sato Akira (hereinafter “Sato”), which is found in the IDS submitted on 07/31/2024, in view of PG Pub. No. US-2019/0375104-A1 to Moriya et al. (hereinafter “Moriya”)
As per claim 1, Sato discloses a moving object control system comprising:
a storage device that stores instructions (Sato, in at least Fig. 2 and ¶¶2-3 & 25, discloses microcomputer 20 having a built-in arithmetic processing circuit and a memory 60); and
at least one processor (Sato, in at least Fig. 2 and ¶¶2-3 & 25, discloses microcomputer 20 having a built-in arithmetic processing circuit and a memory 60) that executes the instructions to:
set a current position and a target position of a moving object (Sato, in at least Fig. 12 and ¶¶60-66, discloses specifying two pieces of position data, the starting position (or current position) and the target position, wherein the target position coordinates are (X0,Y0), and the difference from the current position coordinates (X,Y) of the aircraft detected by a GPS sensor or the like is taken);
PNG
media_image1.png
444
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sato’s Fig. 8
generate, using a polynomial, a first path from the current position to the target position that satisfies a predetermined boundary condition on lw coordinates in which a straight line connecting the current position and the target position of the moving object is defined as an l-axis and a straight line orthogonal to the l-axis is defined as a w-axis, (Sato, in at least Fig(s). 8 [reproduced here for convenience] & 12 and ¶¶60-66, discloses by specifying two pieces of position data, the starting position (or current position) and the target position, wherein the optimal flight route between the two points is automatically set, taking into account flight conditions such as distance, time, and fuel consumption [i.e., so as to satisfy a predetermined boundary condition on the lw coordinates], wherein a movement vector (.DELTA.X,.DELTA.Y) is calculated according to calculation formula [i.e., using a polynomial]); and
convert the generated first path into the xy coordinates in which an advancing direction of the moving object is defined as an x-axis and an axis orthogonal to the x-axis is defined as a y-axis (Sato, in at least Fig(s). 8 &12 and ¶¶60-66 & 70, discloses Step S3, wherein coordinate transformation is performed based on the azimuth angle Ψ of the aircraft, and a movement vector (ΔX1, ΔY1) in the aircraft coordinate system is calculated. Sato further discloses, since the target position and current position data are specified in Earth coordinates, a coordinate conversion is required according to the aircraft's current orientation to indicate which directions indicated in Earth coordinates (north, south, east, west) correspond to which directions forward, backward, left, and right for the aircraft).
While Sato is silent on wherein the predetermined boundary condition includes conditions regarding a posture of the moving object at the current position and a posture of the moving object at the target position, Moriya teaches, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 1, 3, 4, 11 & 12, and ¶¶6-13, 38 & 73 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of path planning systems, wherein the predetermined boundary condition includes conditions regarding a posture of the moving object at the current position and a posture of the moving object at the target position (Moriya, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 1, 3, 4, 11 & 12, and ¶¶6-13, 38 & 73, teaches a path planning unit that generates a path of a robot using a plurality of different constraints determined from the posture of the robot and the characteristics of one or more obstacles that obstruct movement of the robot, an acquisition unit that acquires posture information indicating an initial posture of a robot for which a path is to be generated and a target posture of the robot, and obstacle information indicating a target obstacle that obstructs movement of the robot from the initial posture to the target posture and a controller that controls the path planning unit so as to generate a path of the robot using a path planning method corresponding to a constraint determined from the posture information and the obstacle information acquired by the acquisition unit. Moriya further teaches the path planning apparatus 10 generates a path from any initial posture to a target posture of the robot RB, wherein here a “path” is a list of postures when the robot RB is operated from the initial posture to the target posture).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato in view of Moriya with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would shorten the time required for generating a path of a robot while avoiding obstacles (see at least Moriya’s ¶¶6 & 73).
As per claim 2, Sato as modified by Moriya teaches the moving object control system according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to:
generate a curved path by setting a curvature of a path at least one of the current position and the target position to 0 as the predetermined boundary condition (Sato, in at least Fig. 12 and ¶¶60-66, discloses rather than simply setting a route by connecting the passing point and the flight points before and after it in a straight line, a flight trajectory is set as a smooth, continuous curved trajectory so that the aircraft's orientation or attitude does not change suddenly or discontinuously at the passing points).
As per claim 8, the claim is directed towards a control method that recites similar limitations performed by the moving object control system of claim 1. The cited portions of Sato & Moriya used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim 8. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 9, the claim is directed towards a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that recites similar limitations performed by the moving object control system of claim 1. The cited portions of Sato & Moriya used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim 9. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 10, the claim is directed towards a moving object that recites similar limitations performed by the moving object control system of claim 1. The cited portions of Sato & Moriya used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Claims 3 & 7 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP-2001-306143-A) in view of Moriya (US-2019/0375104-A1), and further in view of PG Pub. No. US-2022/0332554-A1 to Fujishima et al. (hereinafter “Fujishima”), wherein Sato & Fujishima are found in the IDS submitted on 07/31/2024
As per claim 3, Sato as modified by Moriya teaches the moving object control system according to claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated. Sato & Moriya are silent on claim 3 limitations, however Fujishima teaches, in at least ¶¶35 & 54-55 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to:
acquire a captured image of a periphery of the moving object (Fujishima, in at least ¶¶35 & 54-55, teaches a camera that detects the object);
detect an obstacle included in the captured image (Fujishima, in at least ¶¶54-55, teaches a camera that detects the object);
divide a peripheral region of the moving object into a plurality of regions, and generate an occupancy map indicating occupancy of the detected obstacle for each grid (Fujishima, in at least ¶¶54-55, teaches first path R1 is set in advance based on map information on the facility W, wherein the map information on the facility W is information including positional information on an obstacle (such as a pillar) disposed in the facility W, a passage along which the mobile object 10 can travel, and the like, that is, information indicating a region in which the mobile object 10 can move in the region AR);
determine whether or not the converted first path collides with the obstacle included in the occupancy map; and
when it is determined that the first path collides with the obstacle included in the occupancy map, generate a second path for avoiding the obstacle using a search algorithm (Fujishima, in at least ¶¶54-55, teaches first path R1 is set in advance based on map information on the facility W, wherein the map information on the facility W is information including positional information on an obstacle. Fujishima further teaches the shortest first path R1 can be set [implies generates a second path … using search algorithm] to pass through the point desired to be passed through while avoiding an obstacle [i.e., second path for avoiding the obstacle]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sato & Moriya further in view of Fujishima with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would provide shortest path while avoiding an obstacle using optimization calculation of an evaluation function (see at least Fujishima’s Abstract).
As per claim 7, Sato as modified by Moriya teaches the moving object control system according to claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated. Sato is silent on claim 7 limitations, however Fujishima teaches, in at least ¶¶35 & 54-55 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, further comprising:
acquire a captured image of a periphery of the moving object (Fujishima, in at least ¶¶35 & 54-55, teaches a camera that detects the object);
detect an obstacle included in the captured image (Fujishima, in at least ¶¶54-55, teaches a camera that detects the object);
divide a peripheral region of the moving object into a plurality of regions, and generate an occupancy map indicating occupancy of the detected obstacle for each grid; and
give priority to generation of the first path in a vicinity where the obstacle does not exist, and give priority to generation of a second path for avoiding the obstacle in a vicinity where the obstacle exists (Fujishima, in at least ¶¶54-55, teaches first path R1 is set in advance based on map information on the facility W, wherein the map information on the facility W is information including positional information on an obstacle. Fujishima further teaches the shortest first path R1 can be set to pass through the point desired to be passed through while avoiding an obstacle [implies gives priority to generation of a second path for avoiding the obstacle]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sato & Moriya further in view of Fujishima with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would provide shortest path while avoiding an obstacle using optimization calculation of an evaluation function (see at least Fujishima’s Abstract).
Claims 5 & 6 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP-2001-306143-A) in view of Moriya (US-2019/0375104-A1), and further in view of PG Pub. No. US-2024/0262363-A1 to Tsuji et al. (hereinafter “Tsuji”), wherein Sato is found in the IDS submitted on 07/31/2024
As per claim 5, Sato as modified by Moriya teaches the moving object control system according to claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated. Sato & Moriya are silent on claim 5 limitations, however Tsuji teaches, in at least Fig(s). 3-11 and ¶¶54 & 63 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to:
acquire a captured image of a periphery of the moving object (Tsuji, in at least Fig(s). 3 &11 and ¶54, teaches the intersection detector 11 is achieved by the sensors 11 which detect an intersection on the travel route of the vehicle, and mainly includes a front camera that captures images ahead of the subject vehicle, side cameras that capture images on the right and left sides of the subject vehicle, etc.);
recognize a road shape included in the captured image (Tsuji, in at least Fig(s). 3-11 and ¶54, teaches the intersection detector 11 specifies the shape of an intersection from the intersection information acquired by the front camera and the like. The intersection information includes positional information (such as the latitude and longitude) of an intersection entrance IE and an intersection exit IO and information (such as the number of lanes and the lane widths) of lanes R1, R2, R3, and R4 connected to the intersection entrance IE and the intersection exit IO);
set the current position and the target position based on information regarding the captured image and recognition information (Tsuji, in at least Fig. 3 and ¶¶54 & 63, teaches at the timing before the subject vehicle V1 arrives at the entrance of the intersection IS, the travel route generator 195 generates the travel route TR within the intersection IS from the intersection entrance IE to the intersection exit IO).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sato & Moriya further in view of Tsuji with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would eliminate and/or alleviate the uneasy feeling given to the occupants when autonomously traveling through an offset intersection (see at least Tsuji’s Abstract).
As per claim 6, Sato as modified by Moriya & Tsuji teaches the moving object control system according to claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 above is incorporated. Sato & Moriya are silent on claim 6 limitations, however Tsuji further teaches, in at least Fig(s). 3-11 and ¶¶54 & 63 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to:
generate a path at an intersection, and
set a lane to be an exit of the intersection as the target position when the moving object enters the intersection (Tsuji, in at least Fig(s). 3-10 and ¶¶54 & 63, teaches at the timing before the subject vehicle V1 arrives at the entrance of the intersection IS, the travel route generator 195 generates the travel route TR within the intersection IS from the intersection entrance IE to the intersection exit IO).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sato & Moriya further in view of Tsuji with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would eliminate or alleviate the uneasy feeling given to the occupants when autonomously traveling through an offset intersection (see at least Tsuji’s Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC §101, set forth in this Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached and previously mailed PTO-892 forms.
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 extension fee 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 Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661