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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the information disclosure statement filed on 05/31/2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form. Instead, the abstract has been written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 15, recites “predetermined distance” but should recite – the predetermined distance –
Claim 7, line 4, recites “the point” but should recite – the points –
Claim 8, line 3, recites “return” but should recite – a return –
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first obtainer that…” in claim 17, “second obtainer that…” in claim 17, “generator that…” and “outputter that…” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/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.
Claim 1, lines 9-10, recites “a return of the mobile object to the travel route from the point, based on at least one of the first information or second information”. Claim 1, lines 3-4, recite “obtaining first information regarding a region that includes a travel route on which a mobile object travels”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the mobile object has strayed from the travel route already and it is determining third information accordingly or if it is planning a return along the path when avoiding an object or region. In other words, the mobile object is traveling on a travel route but it is never recited that the mobile object strays from the travel route in any way. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation to be planning an obstacle avoidance and how it will return to the travel path. Claims 2-16 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 1, line 9, recites “the point”. Claims 1, line 7, recites “each of the one or more points”. It is unclear to the Examiner if “the point” in line 7 is a respective point of the one or more points or if the point is separate from the one or more points and is a new point being recited (e.g., a location of the mobile object). Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. The Examiner notes claim(s) 4-8 and 15 have similar usage. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets this to be a respective point of the one or more points. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning. Claims 2-16 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
The term “likely” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term likely renders indefinite the term stop. Likely to stop does not show the degree of how likely or what is determined as a stop point. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning. Claims 2-16 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), 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:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claims are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claims 1-16 are directed towards a method, i.e., process. Claim 17 is directed towards a device, i.e., machine.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claims 1-16 (also, the device in claim 17, respectively) is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. With regard to independent claims 1 and 17, the method/system (or computer implemented functionality) recites the steps of: (a) generating, for each of one or more points in the region, third information regarding a return of the mobile object to the travel route from the point, based on at least one of the first information or the second information, the one or more points being points at which the mobile object is likely to stop. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). For example, a person can mentally determine third information regarding a return of the mobile object to the travel route from the point, based on at least one of the first information or the second information, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that method is for use in an information output device does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
With regard to claim 1, data gathering is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Obtaining first information regarding a region that includes a travel route on which a mobile object travels and obtaining second information regarding an object that is present in the region, is mere data gathering. Therefore, obtaining first information regarding a region that includes a travel route on which a mobile object travels and obtaining second information regarding an object that is present in the region is insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Outputting the third information, as claimed, is outputting data. Therefore, outputting the third information is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to claim 17, data gathering is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). A first obtainer that obtains first information regarding a region that includes a travel route on which a mobile object travels and a second obtainer that obtains second information regarding an object that is present in the region, is mere data gathering. Therefore, a first obtainer that obtains first information regarding a region that includes a travel route on which a mobile object travels and a second obtainer that obtains second information regarding an object that is present in the region is insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). An outputter that outputs the third information, as claimed, is outputting data. Therefore, an outputter that outputs the third information is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The following computer functions have been recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality): receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). An outputter that outputs the third information is transmitting data over a network (i.e., from one computing device networked to another computing device). Therefore, the limitation “outputter that outputs the third information” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 and 17 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 17 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Further, dependent claims 2-16 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element. As such, claims 2-16 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 20210197808 A1) in view of Ohara et al. (US 20200159234 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Maeda teaches an information output method for use in an information output device, the information output method comprising: obtaining first information regarding a region that includes a travel route on which a mobile object travels (¶[0004] “acquire automatic traveling information”); obtaining second information regarding an object that is present in the region (¶[0039] “sensors can detect a relative distance and a relative speed with objects such as other vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and obstacles existing around the vehicle”); generating, for each of one or more points in the region, third information regarding a return of the mobile object to the travel route from the point, based on at least one of the first information or the second information (Fig. 7 and ¶[0077]-[0080] “when the vehicle 21 reaches the position 21(d) at which the vehicle 21 can return to the autonomous movement after passing the stationary obstacle 60, the autonomous mobility calculation unit 11 or the remote operator can determine the autonomous mobility again. In this case, the switching from the remote control to the autonomous movement is requested to the in-vehicle control device 1, and the autonomous movement is resumed by the in-vehicle control device”, i.e., calculating or determining the autonomous mobility again), and outputting the third information (Fig. 7 and ¶[0077]-[0080] “when the vehicle 21 reaches the position 21(d) at which the vehicle 21 can return to the autonomous movement after passing the stationary obstacle 60, the autonomous mobility calculation unit 11 or the remote operator can determine the autonomous mobility again. In this case, the switching from the remote control to the autonomous movement is requested to the in-vehicle control device 1, and the autonomous movement is resumed by the in-vehicle control device”, i.e., switching to the autonomous movement is requested or the autonomous movement is resumed).
Maeda does not explicitly teach the one or more points being points at which the mobile object is likely to stop. However, Ohara discloses a vehicle control device and teaches the one or more points being points at which the mobile object is likely to stop (¶[0054]-[0056] “estimates whether or not the vehicle stops”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moving body control system of Maeda to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, the one or more points being points at which the mobile object is likely to stop, as taught by Ohara, to provide taking other vehicles into account during automated driving. (Ohara at ¶[0094])
Regarding claim 2, Maeda teaches the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the third information includes: determining, for each of the one or more points, whether the mobile object can return to the travel route from the point, based on at least one of the first information or the second information (Fig. 3, 7 and ¶[0062]-[0063] “generates a target traveling trajectory 51(a) based on the position of the stationary obstacle”, i.e., which includes passing and returning to travel lane); and generating the third information that includes returnability information indicating whether the mobile object can return to the travel route from the point (Fig. 3, 7 and ¶[0062]-[0063] “generates a target traveling trajectory 51(a) based on the position of the stationary obstacle”, i.e., which includes passing and returning to travel lane).
Regarding claim 3, Maeda teaches the information output method according to claim 2, wherein the mobile object is capable of self-driving (¶[0035] “autonomously moving vehicle”), the travel route is a route on which the mobile object can travel by self-driving (Fig. 1 and ¶[0061]-[0063] “during the autonomous movement of the vehicle 21, there is a stationary obstacle 60 on the target traveling trajectory (lane), and correction of the target traveling trajectory to avoid this stationary obstacle 60 is assumed”), and the generating of the third information includes: determining, for each of the one or more points, whether the mobile object can return to the travel route from the point by self-driving (Fig. 1 and ¶[0061]-[0063] “during the autonomous movement of the vehicle 21, there is a stationary obstacle 60 on the target traveling trajectory (lane), and correction of the target traveling trajectory to avoid this stationary obstacle 60 is assumed”, i.e., which includes passing and returning to travel lane); and generating the third information that includes the returnability information indicating whether the mobile object can return to the travel route from the point by self-driving (Fig. 3, 7 and ¶[0062]-[0063] “generates a target traveling trajectory 51(a) based on the position of the stationary obstacle”, i.e., which includes passing and returning to travel lane).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda teaches the information output method according to claim 2, wherein the generating of the third information includes: calculating, for each of the one or more points, a return route on which the mobile object returns to the travel route from the point, based on the first information (Fig. 3, 7 and ¶[0062]-[0063] “generates a target traveling trajectory 51(a) based on the position of the stationary obstacle”, i.e., which includes passing and returning to travel lane); determining whether the mobile object can arrive at the travel route by traveling on the return route, based on at least one of the first information or the second information (Fig. 3, 7 and ¶[0062]-[0063] “generates a target traveling trajectory 51(a) based on the position of the stationary obstacle”, i.e., which includes passing and returning to travel lane); determining that the mobile object can return to the travel route from the point, when it is determined that the mobile object can arrive at the travel route (Fig. 3, 7 and ¶[0062]-[0063] “generates a target traveling trajectory 51(a) based on the position of the stationary obstacle”, i.e., which includes passing and returning to travel lane); and determining that the mobile object cannot return to the travel route, when it is determined that the mobile object cannot arrive at the travel route (¶[0077] “determines that the autonomous movement cannot be continued in the future during the autonomous movement and switches to the remote control in advance”).
Regarding claim 5, Maeda does not explicitly teach the information output method according to claim 2, wherein the generating of the third information includes: determining, for each of the one or more points, whether the mobile object needs to move backward before the mobile object returns to the travel route from the point; and determining whether the mobile object can return to the travel route from the point, based on a result of the determining indicating whether the mobile object needs to move backward. However, Ohara discloses a vehicle control device and teaches the information output method according to claim 2, wherein the generating of the third information includes: determining, for each of the one or more points, whether the mobile object needs to move backward before the mobile object returns to the travel route from the point (¶[0059] “subject vehicle M moves backward so there is sufficient vacant space in front of the vehicle for a preceding vehicle stop space A1”); and determining whether the mobile object can return to the travel route from the point, based on a result of the determining indicating whether the mobile object needs to move backward (¶[0055]-[0057] “automated driving associated with a surrounding situation of the subject vehicle”, i.e., automated driving can include predicting vehicle stops and then continuing on the path following the vehicle stops).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moving body control system of Maeda to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the generating of the third information includes: determining, for each of the one or more points, whether the mobile object needs to move backward before the mobile object returns to the travel route from the point; and determining whether the mobile object can return to the travel route from the point, based on a result of the determining indicating whether the mobile object needs to move backward, as taught by Ohara, to provide taking other vehicles into account during automated driving. (Ohara at ¶[0094])
Regarding claim 7, Maeda does not explicitly teach the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the third information includes: determining, for each of the one or more points, whether the mobile object can stop at each of the point, based on at least one of the first information or the second information; and generating the third information that includes stoppability information indicating whether the mobile object can stop at the point. However, Ohara discloses a vehicle control device and teaches the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the third information includes: determining, for each of the one or more points, whether the mobile object can stop at each of the point, based on at least one of the first information or the second information (¶[0054] “vicinity recognizing unit 132 recognizes whether or not there is a vehicle stop avoiding area in the advancement direction on the basis of at least one of an image captured by the camera 10 and position information”); and generating the third information that includes stoppability information indicating whether the mobile object can stop at the point (¶[0054]-[0055] “vicinity recognizing unit 132 recognizes whether or not there is a vehicle stop avoiding area in the advancement direction on the basis of at least one of an image captured by the camera 10 and position information” “estimates whether a specific situation occurs by recognizing the current position, the steering, and acceleration/deceleration of the preceding vehicle mA1 acquired by the vicinity recognizing unit 132”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moving body control system of Maeda to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the generating of the third information includes: determining, for each of the one or more points, whether the mobile object can stop at each of the point, based on at least one of the first information or the second information; and generating the third information that includes stoppability information indicating whether the mobile object can stop at the point, as taught by Ohara, to provide taking other vehicles into account during automated driving. (Ohara at ¶[0094])
Regarding claim 10, Maeda teaches the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the third information includes: generating the third information, based on at least one of the first information or the second information, and performance information indicating traveling performance of the mobile object (¶[0061]-[0063] “generates a target traveling trajectory 51(a) based on the position of the stationary obstacle 60 so as to avoid a collision” “calculating a deviation of a target traveling trajectory”).
Regarding claim 11, Maeda does not explicitly teach the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the third information includes: generating the third information, based on at least one of the first information or the second information, and traffic volume information indicating a traffic volume in the region. However, Ohara discloses a vehicle control device and teaches the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the third information includes: generating the third information, based on at least one of the first information or the second information, and traffic volume information indicating a traffic volume in the region (¶[0089] “preceding vehicle mA1 is estimated to stop inside the vehicle stop avoiding area” “surrounding situations” “degree of congestion”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moving body control system of Maeda to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the generating of the third information includes: generating the third information, based on at least one of the first information or the second information, and traffic volume information indicating a traffic volume in the region, as taught by Ohara, to provide taking other vehicles into account during automated driving. (Ohara at ¶[0094])
Regarding claim 12, Maeda teaches the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the first information includes at least one of: rule information indicating a traffic rule in the region; travelability information indicating whether the mobile object can travel in the region; or distance information indicating a distance from the region to the travel route (¶[0054] “generating a travelable range based on external information” “traffic regulations”).
Regarding claim 13, Maeda teaches the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the second information indicates whether the object is present in the region (¶[0039] “recognizing the external world” “sensors can detect a relative distance and a relative speed with objects such as other vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and obstacles existing around the vehicle 21”), the object being detected by a sensor disposed in the mobile object (¶[0039] “recognizing the external world” “sensors can detect a relative distance and a relative speed with objects such as other vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and obstacles existing around the vehicle 21”).
Regarding claim 14, Maeda teaches the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more points include a point at which the mobile object is located (¶[0103] “current position”).
Regarding claim 15, Maeda does not explicitly teach the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the third information includes: generating the third information that includes image information in which, among the one or more points, a point from which the mobile object can return to the travel route is represented in a first color and a point from which the mobile object cannot return to the travel route is represented in a second color that is different from the first color. However, Ohara discloses a vehicle control device and teaches the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the third information includes: generating the third information that includes image information in which, among the one or more points, a point from which the mobile object can return to the travel route is represented in a first color and a point from which the mobile object cannot return to the travel route is represented in a second color that is different from the first color (¶[0068] “vicinity recognizing unit” “recognizing vehicle stop avoiding area based on partition color”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moving body control system of Maeda to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the generating of the third information includes: generating the third information, based on at least one of the first information or the second information, and traffic volume information indicating a traffic volume in the region, as taught by Ohara, to provide converting elements recognized in the frontside landscape, e.g., a camera image. (Ohara at ¶[0068])
Regarding claim 16, Maeda teaches the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile object operates by remote control performed by a terminal that is connected at least via a network (Fig. 7 and ¶[0077]-[0080] “switches to the remote control” “overtaking operation after the remote control”), and the outputting of the third information includes outputting the third information to the terminal (Fig. 7 and ¶[0077]-[0080] “when the vehicle 21 reaches the position 21(d) at which the vehicle 21 can return to the autonomous movement after passing the stationary obstacle 60, the autonomous mobility calculation unit 11 or the remote operator can determine the autonomous mobility again. In this case, the switching from the remote control to the autonomous movement is requested to the in-vehicle control device 1, and the autonomous movement is resumed by the in-vehicle control device”, i.e., switching to the autonomous movement is requested or the autonomous movement is resumed).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 20210197808 A1) in view of Ohara et al. (US 20200159234 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee (US 20100036605 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Maeda and Ohara does not explicitly teach the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the third information includes: calculating, for each of the one or more points, return time that is time taken by the mobile object to return to the travel route from the point; and generating the third information that includes return time information indicating the return time. However, Lee discloses navigation systems and route planning methods and teaches the information output method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the third information includes: calculating, for each of the one or more points, return time that is time taken by the mobile object to return to the travel route from the point (¶[0024]-[0025] “determination of the return point from the planned route may be performed by finding the shortest route”); and generating the third information that includes return time information indicating the return time (¶[0024]-[0025] “fastest route” “displays a planned route”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moving body control system of Maeda as modified by Ohara to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the generating of the third information includes: calculating, for each of the one or more points, return time that is time taken by the mobile object to return to the travel route from the point; and generating the third information that includes return time information indicating the return time, as taught by Lee, to provide determining the shortest route or fastest route to return to a planned route. (Lee at ¶[0025])
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Maeda and Ohara does not explicitly teach the information output method according to claim 8, wherein the generating of the third information includes: generating the third information that includes shortest point information indicating a point, among the one or more points, from which time taken to return to the travel route is shortest. However, Lee discloses navigation systems and route planning methods and teaches the information output method according to claim 8, wherein the generating of the third information includes: generating the third information that includes shortest point information indicating a point, among the one or more points, from which time taken to return to the travel route is shortest (¶[0024]-[0025] “shortest route” “displays a planned route”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moving body control system of Maeda as modified by Ohara to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the generating of the third information includes: calculating, for each of the one or more points, return time that is time taken by the mobile object to return to the travel route from the point; and generating the third information that includes return time information indicating the return time, as taught by Lee, to provide determining the shortest route or fastest route to return to a planned route. (Lee at ¶[0025])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li et al. (CN 112805763 A) is pertinent because it is related to a road pre-warning method, device and system.
Yadmellat et al. (US 20210064040 A1) is pertinent because it is a processor-implemented method and system for determining a predictive occupancy grid map (OGM) for an autonomous vehicle.
Park et al. (US 20200174470 A1) is pertinent because it is a system for supporting an autonomous vehicle includes a server configured to search for and provide a driving route in response to a request of the vehicle.
Ohl (US 20180362030 A1) is pertinent because it is a method for determining, dependent on safety levels, spatial regions that are impassable by a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666