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 Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of 24 October 2025.
Claims 14 and 18 have been canceled.
Claim 25 has been newly added.
Claims 1-13, 15-17, 22, and 24-25 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
While applicant’s amendments have overcome numerous of the previously identified issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), some issues remain as detailed below, and new issues are introduced, also as detailed below.
Applicant's arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argued:
Applicant respectfully submits that all of the pending claims satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. For instance, amended claim 1 recites that the route search device achieves the practical application of providing users with appropriate routes, including areas where vehicles cannot pass, in response to receiving a disaster notification, by generating passage information about a road using an image of the road mounted on a mobile body, by identifying a disaster area using an analyzed change in the ground surface using a measurement result acquired by a synthetic aperture radar equipped on an artificial satellite, by searching for a route using the identified disaster area and the generated passage information, and by controlling a display device to display the route. Accordingly, one or more example embodiments may address shortcomings with related art techniques, wherein, if a synthetic aperture radar is used, a detailed state of a road or the like cannot be determined in some cases or, on the other hand, if an image acquired from a vehicle is used, a route cannot be searched for in an area where a vehicle cannot pass (see e.g., Specification, 0001-0010, 0045 , 0092, 0093, 0103).
The Examiner’s response:
Applicant asserts “amended claim 1 recites that the route search device achieves the practical application of providing users with appropriate routes, including areas where vehicles cannot pass, in response to receiving a disaster notification, by generating passage information about a road using an image of the road mounted on a mobile body, by identifying a disaster area using an analyzed change in the ground surface using a measurement result acquired by a synthetic aperture radar equipped on an artificial satellite, by searching for a route using the identified disaster area and the generated passage information, and by controlling a display device to display the route.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments do not elaborate how the claimed invention’s additional elements/limitations considered both individually and in combination integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two. Further, any improvement in “providing users with appropriate routes…” is an improved abstract idea, and cannot constitute an additional element in the claim that might integrate the abstract idea to a practical application. Therefore, the rejection of such claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection maintained herein.
Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendments most recently submitted by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 09/18/2024 and 01/27/2026 have been considered. An initialed copy of the IDS(s) is/are enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Grammatical revision is needed to the limitation “an evacuation place to pass”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5 and 9 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.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “search for the route based on at least one of a possibility of passage included in the passage information, and a disaster possibility included in the disaster area, and a risk level included in the disaster area”. it is unclear to the Examiner what “a risk level included in the disaster area” corresponds to or what particularly defines a risk level?
As to claim 9, the claim recites “a recovery time of the passage of each road included in the routes using at least one of the history of the change in the ground surface and the history of the sensor information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the claim recites “predict a recovery time of each route candidate using the predicted recovery time of each road included in each route candidate”. It is unclear to the Examiner what “each route candidate” is referring to. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the predicted recovery time of each road included in each route candidate”. Additionally, the claim recites “search the route candidate that has the earliest recovery time among the predicted recovery times of the route candidates as the recommended route.” It is unclear to the Examiner what is meant by “search the route candidate…as the recommended route”. The Examiner notes that grammatical revision is needed to the entire claim.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim for which they depend and are rejected herein based on their dependency.
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 1-13, 15-17, 22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward an apparatus which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. The claim recites “in response to receiving a disaster notification from a disaster alarm or from a user, generate passage information about a road, using sensor information related to the road”, “identify a disaster area using the analyzed change in the ground surface”, “analyze a change in the ground surface using the acquired measurement result”, and “search for a route to a predetermined point using the identified disaster area and the generated passage information” which given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “generate…”, “identify…”, “analyze…”, and “search…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining whether a route is passable/safely taken based on information related to the route and finding an alternative route to avoid a disaster area. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial except ion to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, the claimed elements “the sensor information being acquired by a sensor information acquisition device mounted on a mobile body, and the sensor information comprising an image of the road;”, “acquire a measurement result created by a ground surface measurement device, the ground measurement device comprising a synthetic aperture radar equipped on an artificial satellite”, and “control a display device to display the searched route” are recited at a high-level of generality and directed to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and outputting data. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a memory”, “one or more processors”, “sensor information acquisition device”, “a ground surface measurement device comprising a synthetic aperture radar”, and “a display device”. The “a memory”, “one or more processors”, “sensor information acquisition device”, “a ground surface measurement device comprising a synthetic aperture radar”, and “a display device” are merely tools being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “a memory”, “one or more processors”, “sensor information acquisition device”, “a ground surface measurement device comprising a synthetic aperture radar”, and “a display device” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The components merely automate the aforementioned steps and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
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:
Claim 1 is 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to provide an
inventive concept in Step 2B, for example, the claimed elements “the sensor information being acquired by a sensor information acquisition device mounted on a mobile body, and the sensor information comprising an image of the road;”, “acquire a measurement result created by a ground surface measurement device, the ground measurement device comprising a synthetic aperture radar equipped on an artificial satellite”, and “control a display device to display the searched route” are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d), II, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);”.
As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of “a memory”, “one or more processors”, “sensor information acquisition device”, “a ground surface measurement device comprising a synthetic aperture radar”, and “a display device” are merely tools being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “a memory”, “one or more processors”, “sensor information acquisition device”, “a ground surface measurement device comprising a synthetic aperture radar”, and “a display device” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 22 and 24 , claim 22 recites a method and claim 24 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, both in which fall within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claims 22 and 24 recite similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim is not eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claims 2-13, 15-17, and 25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency to the independent claims.
Claims 2-13, 15-17, and 25 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because the additional elements are directed toward additional aspects of judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claim 6 further the abstract idea.
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under similar rationale as their independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 13-16, 22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley-Klay et al. (US 10807591 B1) in view of Morita et al. (WO-2021084698-A1) and further in view of Nakumura et al. (US 20090024320 A1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 22 and 24, Kentley-Klay et al.
discloses A route search device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: in response to receiving a disaster notification from a disaster alarm or from a user, generate passage information about a road, using sensor information related to the road, the sensor information being acquired by a sensor information acquisition device mounted on a mobile body, (Fig. 1A – 1B, column 1 lines 50 – 60 “detecting a disaster (e.g., a natural disaster, man-caused disaster, or other catastrophic event) using one or more autonomous vehicles, as well as their subsequent control after a disaster is detected, or otherwise indicated. The techniques discussed herein may include detecting a disaster from sensor data generated by a autonomous vehicle, verifying that a disaster occurred, and/or altering operation of one or more autonomous vehicles of a fleet of vehicles depending on a type and/or state of the detected disaster.”, column 1 line 61 – column 2 line 5 “a autonomous vehicle may detect a disaster via sensor data collected by the autonomous vehicle and may generate a disaster identification based on the detection. For examples, techniques discussed herein may include detecting seismic activity using one or more autonomous vehicles of a fleet. In some examples, multiple autonomous vehicles may use sensor data received at different autonomous vehicles to corroborate and/or locate a disaster (e.g., verify that an earthquake has occurred, locate an epicenter of an earthquake). The autonomous vehicle may transmit the disaster identification to a remote computing device and/or another autonomous vehicle.”, and column 4 lines 50-57 “the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) may detect the disaster 104 from first sensor data 108(1) collected by the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) or otherwise relayed to the first autonomous vehicle 106(1). In additional or alternate examples, the disaster 104 may be detected at a remote computing device 110 and/or a second autonomous vehicle 106(2) and notification thereof may be transmitted to the autonomous vehicle 106.”)
identify a disaster area
route to a predetermined point using the identified disaster area and the generated passage information; and (Column 4 lines 1 – 13 “the alternate mission may include a route generated before the disaster was detected and generating a new route that includes higher elevation for “early warning” “flood,” generating a new route to avoid an area attributed to a disaster for a variety of disaster types, generating a new route destined for an underpass or other protection for “ongoing” “tornado,” generating a new route or stopping to avoid buildings for “ongoing” “seismic activity,” a shuttle mode that includes returning to a disaster location to pick up and transport individuals from the disaster location to a safe location for a variety of disaster types that are “ongoing” or “post-disaster”, etc.”, column 5 lines 33 – 51 “the disaster identification may include data characteristics to which the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) may compare received sensor data, a disaster state, and/or a disaster type. For example, a disaster state may include indication of an “early warning” or “pre-disaster” condition that is indicative of a disaster. This may include dry vegetation conditions that may increase the likelihood of a wildfire, elevated rain and/or water levels, wind speeds, audio that indicates a potential disaster (e.g., rumbling, crowd noise), etc. A disaster state may additionally or alternatively include an indication of an ongoing disaster and/or that a disaster has already occurred but disaster conditions persist (e.g., flooding/landslide, destroyed roadways, obstructions). The disaster type may include, for example, cyclone, flood, seismic activity (e.g., earthquake, volcano, sinkhole, tsunami), fire, projectile collision (e.g., meteor, massive collision such as a fallen aircraft or missile), elevated radiation levels, aberrant human activity, an explosion, etc.”, and column 13 lines 45 – 57 “if the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) determines that a current IMU signal includes a characteristic that meets the disaster definition (e.g., by meeting or meeting a threshold magnitude and/or duration, and/or by exemplifying a spectral profile that fits a spectral profile of the disaster definition), then then first autonomous vehicle 106(1) may generate a disaster identification. In some examples, other sensor data may be used to refine a type of seismic activity from general seismic activity to more particular seismic activity such as, for example, volcanic activity (e.g., by a network connection, a camera signal), a sinkhole (e.g., by a camera signal, a lidar signal), earthquake (e.g., by a network connection, a camera signal, a lidar signal).”)
Kentley-Klay et al. fails to explicitly disclose acquire a measurement result created by a
ground surface measurement device, the ground surface measurement device comprising a synthetic aperture radar equipped on an artificial satellite; analyze a change in the ground surface using the acquired measurement result; identify a disaster area using the analyzed change in the ground surface;
Morita et al. teaches acquire a measurement result created by a ground surface
measurement device, the ground surface measurement device comprising a synthetic aperture radar equipped on an artificial satellite; (Figure 1, page 3 lines 20-27 “the analysis device 1 of the present embodiment is a device that analyzes sensor information. The sensor information is information obtained by observing the sensor. The analysis performed by the analysis device 1 is, for example, a process of extracting a change region that has changed before and after the occurrence of a disaster by using an image acquired by a sensor such as a SAR image. The SAR image is an image obtained by processing data acquired by SAR mounted on an artificial satellite or an aircraft.”) analyze a change in the ground surface using the acquired measurement result; identify a disaster area using the analyzed change in the ground surface; (page 3 lines 28-30 “The content of the analysis performed by the analysis device 1 is not limited to this, and may be, for example, a process of extracting a region where an abnormality expected to lead to a disaster has occurred.”, page 8 line 33 – page 9 line 5 “The analysis unit 16 analyzes the sensor information for each section based on the priority received from the priority determination unit 14. For example, the analysis unit 16 extracts a change region on the surface of the earth using the sensor information stored in 35 the processing information storage unit 13 for each section based on the priority order received from the priority determination unit 14. The change area information indicating the change area is output as the analysis result. The surface of the earth includes the surface of land, the surface of the sea, the surface of lakes and rivers, and buildings built on the surface of the earth.”, and page 9 lines 16 – 21 “The process of extracting the area where the abnormality expected to lead to a disaster occurs is the same as the extraction of the change area described above, for example, the reference past sensor information and the newly acquired sensor information. This is a process of extracting an area where the difference is equal to or greater than the threshold value as an area where an abnormality has occurred”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kentley-Klay et al. to incorporate analyzing the change area/region as taught by Morita et al. for the purpose of planning and executing emergency response at the time of a disaster.
However, Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al. fails to explicitly disclose the sensor information comprising an image of the road; and control a display device to display the searched route.
Nakumura et al. teaches the sensor information comprising an image of the road; (Figure 3a -3b, and [0085] “The photographed information from the mounted camera 6 is sent to the image processing portion 3a, and characteristic images (the road edge G1i, the white line G2i, the broken line G3i, and the center white line G4i) along the road at the approximate position of the guided vehicle are extracted from the photographic information.”)
control a display device to display the searched route. (Figure 7, [0050] “display of the recommended route R.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al. to incorporate information relating to the vehicle travel route and displaying a recommended route as taught by Nakumura et al. for the purpose of informing the user with route information, increasing usability.
Regarding claim 2, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. discloses
The route search device according to claim 1,
Kentley-Klay et al. discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
search for a recommended route as the route, the recommended route being a route that allows safe passage. (Column 14 lines 4-13 “generating a new route that includes higher elevation for “early warning” “flood,” generating a new route to avoid an area attributed to a disaster for a variety of disaster types, generating a new route destined for an underpass or other protection for “ongoing” “tornado”)
Regarding claim 3, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. discloses
The route search device according to claim 2,
Kentley-Klay et al. discloses The recommended route is a route that is included in a
passable area included in the passage information and that is not included in the disaster area, the passable area being information indicating an area of a road through which a mobile body can pass. (Column 14 lines 4-13 “generating a new route that includes higher elevation for “early warning” “flood,” generating a new route to avoid an area attributed to a disaster for a variety of disaster types, generating a new route destined for an underpass or other protection for “ongoing” “tornado”, column 12 lines 41-53 “one or more autonomous vehicles may generate disaster identifications and/or contribute collected sensor information to increase confidence that a disaster condition has been detected. In some examples, this may include receiving sensor data from one or more autonomous vehicles and defining characteristics of the disaster such as, for example, a location, dimension, velocity, acceleration, etc. of the disaster (e.g., a boundary of a fire, a speed of a mudslide or fire expansion). In some examples, the remote computing device 110 may use these characteristics to generate a zone and/or boundary of the disaster and/or a zone and/or boundary through which the autonomous vehicles will not generate a route.”, and column 19 lines 57-59 “generating a new route for controlling the autonomous vehicle that does not include an area associated with the disaster;”)
Regarding claim 5, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. discloses
The route search device according to claim 1,
Kentley-Klay et al. discloses the one or more processors are further configured to: search
for the route based on at least one of a possibility of passage included in the passage information, and a disaster possibility included in the disaster area, and a risk level included in the disaster area. (Column 5 lines 33 – 51 “the disaster identification may include data characteristics to which the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) may compare received sensor data, a disaster state, and/or a disaster type. For example, a disaster state may include indication of an “early warning” or “pre-disaster” condition that is indicative of a disaster. This may include dry vegetation conditions that may increase the likelihood of a wildfire, elevated rain and/or water levels, wind speeds, audio that indicates a potential disaster (e.g., rumbling, crowd noise), etc. A disaster state may additionally or alternatively include an indication of an ongoing disaster and/or that a disaster has already occurred but disaster conditions persist (e.g., flooding/landslide, destroyed roadways, obstructions). The disaster type may include, for example, cyclone, flood, seismic activity (e.g., earthquake, volcano, sinkhole, tsunami), fire, projectile collision (e.g., meteor, massive collision such as a fallen aircraft or missile), elevated radiation levels, aberrant human activity, an explosion, etc.”, and column 19 lines 57-59 “generating a new route for controlling the autonomous vehicle that does not include an area associated with the disaster;”)
Regarding claim 13, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. discloses
The route search device according to claim 1,
Kentley-Klay et al. discloses the one or more processors are further configured to: set a
priority to the route. (Column 4 lines 1-9 “the alternate mission may include a route generated before the disaster was detected and generating a new route that includes higher elevation for “early warning” “flood,” generating a new route to avoid an area attributed to a disaster for a variety of disaster types, generating a new route destined for an underpass or other protection for “ongoing” “tornado,” generating a new route or stopping to avoid buildings for “ongoing” “seismic activity,””)
Regarding claim 15, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. The
route search device according to claim 1,
Kentley-Klay et al. discloses the one or more processors are further configured to: search for the route satisfying a predetermined condition. (Column 9 lines 27 – 44 “generates a route that includes or terminates at a geographical location that is at a higher elevation than a current elevation of the first autonomous vehicle 106(1); “seek shelter” mode 120(C) where the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) determines a geographical location on a map accessible to the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) that includes shelter from weather and/or debris (e.g., an overpass to shelter the vehicle and passengers from a tornado, a safe location) and generates a route to the geographical location; geographical area avoidance (e.g., generating routes to guide the autonomous vehicle that do not include the geographical area); a “safe stop” mode where the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) comes to a stop in a safe place (e.g., away from buildings, at high ground, off the roadway, under shelter) a until an all-clear signal is received; a “preferential travel” mode”)
Regarding claim 16, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. discloses
The route search device according to claim 15,
Kentley-Klay et al. discloses the predetermined condition includes at least one of a plurality of conditions related to a route distance, a route travel time, a rest place, a store, and a difference in height of the route. (Column 9 lines 27 – 30 “generates a route that includes or terminates at a geographical location that is at a higher elevation than a current elevation of the first autonomous vehicle 106”, and column 9 lines 31 – 37 “where the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) determines a geographical location on a map accessible to the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) that includes shelter from weather and/or debris (e.g., an overpass to shelter the vehicle and passengers from a tornado, a safe location) and generates a route to the geographical location”)
Regarding claim 25, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. discloses
The route search device according to claim 1,
Morita et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
request the measurement result of a route search target area to the synthetic aperture radar; and acquire the measurement result of the route search target area from the synthetic aperture radar. (page 3 lines 28-30 “The content of the analysis performed by the analysis device 1 is not limited to this, and may be, for example, a process of extracting a region where an abnormality expected to lead to a disaster has occurred.”, page 5 lines 13-20 “When the sensor is an artificial satellite, the sensor information providing device 2 calculates the position observed by the sensor based on the orbital position of the artificial satellite, the operating conditions of the sensor, and the like, and the sensor together with the information indicating the position. The observed data or the data is processed to provide the data. When the sensor is an artificial satellite, the sensor information acquisition unit 11 acquires sensor information including a target area to be analyzed from the sensor information providing device 2.”, page 8 line 33 – page 9 line 5 “The analysis unit 16 analyzes the sensor information for each section based on the priority received from the priority determination unit 14. For example, the analysis unit 16 extracts a change region on the surface of the earth using the sensor information stored in 35 the processing information storage unit 13 for each section based on the priority order received from the priority determination unit 14. The change area information indicating the change area is output as the analysis result. The surface of the earth includes the surface of land, the surface of the sea, the surface of lakes and rivers, and buildings built on the surface of the earth.”, and page 9 lines 16 – 21 “The process of extracting the area where the abnormality expected to lead to a disaster occurs is the same as the extraction of the change area described above, for example, the reference past sensor information and the newly acquired sensor information. This is a process of extracting an area where the difference is equal to or greater than the threshold value as an area where an abnormality has occurred”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the routing system of Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al., Nakumura et al. to incorporate the teachings of Morita et al. for the same reasons stated in the motivation of claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley-Klay et al. (US 10807591 B1) in view of Morita et al. (WO-2021084698-A1), in view of Nakumura et al. (US 20090024320 A1), and further in view of Dhanani (US 20110153191 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. discloses The route search
device according to claim 16,
However, Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. fails to explicitly disclose the predetermined condition includes at least one of an evacuation place to pass and a dangerous structure, the dangerous structure being a structure that includes at least one of a tunnel and a bridge.
Dhanani teaches the predetermined condition includes at least one of an evacuation place to pass and a dangerous structure, the dangerous structure being a structure that includes at least one of a tunnel and a bridge. ([0058] “the environment profile 524 can indicate heavy thunderstorms in the routing region 520 and can include a lower routing value for roads that are susceptible to flooding. In another example, the environment profile 524 can indicate a bridge is heavily congested with rush hour traffic. The navigation system 100 can use the information to calculate the compensation route 210 that avoids the bridge and avoids streets that are susceptible to flooding.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. to incorporate calculating a route based on the location profile as taught by Dhanani for the purpose of allowing the user/vehicle to navigate safely.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley-Klay et al. (US 10807591 B1) in view of Morita et al. (WO-2021084698-A1), in view of Nakumura et al. (US 20090024320 A1), and further in view of Minamata Yuri (JP 2018005264 A).
Regarding claim 4, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. discloses
The route search device according to claim 1,
However, Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. fails to
explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine traffic congestion of a road using the sensor information, and generate the passage information based on the determined traffic congestion.
Minamata Yuri teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine traffic congestion of a road using the sensor information and generate the passage information based on the determined traffic congestion. ([0016] “The traffic jam prediction information generating unit 2080 generates traffic jam prediction information using the evacuation vehicle information and the map information. The congestion prediction information indicates the prediction of the congestion degree of the road connecting the departure planned place and the evacuation place.”, [0081] “Based on the number of vehicles actually measured on the actual road corresponding to the link 50, the congestion prediction information generating unit 2080 corrects the number of vehicles on the traffic simulation at the current or past time point You may do. Here, to actually measure the number of vehicles on the road, existing technology such as counting the number of vehicles using a vehicle sensor can be used. In addition, the existing technology can also be used for a method in which the congestion prediction information generating unit 2080 acquires information from a vehicle sensor or the like.”, and [0140] “the congestion prediction information generating unit 2080 determines the route represented by the determined permutation as the evacuation route. Further, the congestion prediction information generating unit 2080 sets the total of the required time required to pass through each link 50 constituting the evacuation route as the predicted required time… the congestion prediction information generating unit 2080 determines the route represented by the determined permutation as the evacuation route. Further, the congestion prediction information generating unit 2080 sets the total of the required time required to pass through each link 50 constituting the evacuation route as the predicted required time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the routing system Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. to incorporate congestion prediction information as taught by Minamata Yuri for the purpose of providing a user a suitable route in an event of a disaster.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley-Klay et al. (US 10807591 B1) in view of Morita et al. (WO-2021084698-A1), in view of Nakumura et al. (US 20090024320 A1), and further in view of Santo Akihiko (JP 2003162785 A).
Regarding claim 6, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. discloses
The route search device according to claim 1,
Kentley-Klay et al. discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: predict the disaster area at a predetermined time point…( [0032] “In some examples, the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) may transmit an advanced warning of an “early warning” or an “ongoing” state, for example, to a remote computing device 110. In some examples, the remote computing device 110 may use this information (and similar information from other autonomous vehicles and/or other sources) to identify a leading edge of an earthquake, direction of lava flow, direction of aberrant human movement, etc. In some examples, the teleoperations device may provide commands to one or more autonomous vehicles based on this inference. For example, the remote computing device 110 may transmit a command to a fleet of autonomous vehicles to avoid an area that includes both a current location of a disaster and/or the first autonomous vehicle and an area that the teleoperations device and/or a teleoperator interpolates, extrapolates, or estimates as being a direction in which conditions of the disaster will be within a time range. In one example, the remote computing device 110 might command the fleet of autonomous vehicles to avoid both an area where a riot is occurring and, based on perception data received from one or more autonomous vehicles regarding the velocity and/or acceleration of identified objects at the riot area (e.g., people), an area to which the riot is anticipated to move within 30 minutes”)…using a history of the change ([0049] “In some examples, the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) may determine that the energy of the channel of a current camera signal is higher than a historical energy of the channel of a previous camera signal at the same location. In some examples, the one or more processors may generate a disaster identification based at least in part on determining that the current channel energy is greater than the historical channel energy by a defined threshold.”) search for the route at the predetermined time point using the predicted disaster area. (column 4 lines 1 – 13 “The alternate mission may depend on the type and/or state of the disaster. For example, the alternate mission may include a route generated before the disaster was detected and generating a new route that includes higher elevation for “early warning” “flood,” generating a new route to avoid an area attributed to a disaster for a variety of disaster types, generating a new route destined for an underpass or other protection for “ongoing” “tornado,” generating a new route or stopping to avoid buildings for “ongoing” “seismic activity,” a shuttle mode that includes returning to a disaster location to pick up and transport individuals from the disaster location to a safe location for a variety of disaster types that are “ongoing” or “post-disaster”, etc.)”)
However, Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. fails to
explicitly disclose a history of the change in the ground surface.
Santo Akihiko teaches a history of the change in the ground surface. ([0008] “the evacuation guidance route is stored and the water level of each predicted flood area is automatically flooded when the possibility of reaching the dangerous water level predetermined for each predicted flood area is estimated from the increase information. The flood forecasting means for outputting the forecast information for each predicted flood area, and the optimum evacuation guidance route map for each forecasted flood area predicted by the flood forecast information is automatically retrieved from the evacuation path table and output.”, and [0036] “The critical water level arrival time calculation unit 6 estimates the possibility of reaching a preset critical water level (flooding water level) from historical data, that is, data related to the increase in rainfall and the occurrence of floods, rainfall prediction data, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the disaster prediction system of Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al. and Nakumura to incorporate historical data relating to flooding water level as taught by Santo Akihiko for the purpose of accurately predicting an area where a water disaster may occur and providing an optimal evacuation route to a user.
Regarding claim 7, Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al., Nakumura et al.
and Santo Akihiko discloses The route search device according to claim 6,
Kentley-Klay et al. discloses the one or more processors configured to: predict the passage information at the predetermined time point using a history of the sensor information; ([0032] “In some examples, the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) may transmit an advanced warning of an “early warning” or an “ongoing” state, for example, to a remote computing device 110. In some examples, the remote computing device 110 may use this information (and similar information from other autonomous vehicles and/or other sources) to identify a leading edge of an earthquake, direction of lava flow, direction of aberrant human movement, etc. In some examples, the teleoperations device may provide commands to one or more autonomous vehicles based on this inference. For example, the remote computing device 110 may transmit a command to a fleet of autonomous vehicles to avoid an area that includes both a current location of a disaster and/or the first autonomous vehicle and an area that the teleoperations device and/or a teleoperator interpolates, extrapolates, or estimates as being a direction in which conditions of the disaster will be within a time range. In one example, the remote computing device 110 might command the fleet of autonomous vehicles to avoid both an area where a riot is occurring and, based on perception data received from one or more autonomous vehicles regarding the velocity and/or acceleration of identified objects at the riot area (e.g., people), an area to which the riot is anticipated to move within 30 minutes”, and ([0049] “In some examples, the first autonomous vehicle 106(1) may determine that the energy of the channel of a current camera signal is higher than a historical energy of the channel of a previous camera signal at the same location. In some examples, the one or more processors may generate a disaster identification based at least in part on determining that the current channel energy is greater than the historical channel energy by a defined threshold.”) and search for the route at the predetermined time point using the predicted passage information. (column 4 lines 1 – 13 “The alternate mission may depend on the type and/or state of the disaster. For example, the alternate mission may include a route generated before the disaster was detected and generating a new route that includes higher elevation for “early warning” “flood,” generating a new route to avoid an area attributed to a disaster for a variety of disaster types, generating a new route destined for an underpass or other protection for “ongoing” “tornado,” generating a new route or stopping to avoid buildings for “ongoing” “seismic activity,” a shuttle mode that includes returning to a disaster location to pick up and transport individuals from the disaster location to a safe location for a variety of disaster types that are “ongoing” or “post-disaster”, etc.)”)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley-Klay et al. (US 10807591 B1) in view of Morita et al. (WO-2021084698-A1), in view of Nakumura et al. (US 20090024320 A1), in view of Santo Akihiko (JP 2003162785 A), and further in view of Tadano (US 20170316538 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al., Nakumura et al., and Santo
Akihiko discloses The route search device according to claim 6,
However, Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al., Nakumura et al., and Santo Akihiko fails to explicitly disclose the one or more processors are further configured to: predict a recovery time of a road, and search for the route using the recovery time of the road.
Tadano teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: predict a recovery time of a road, ([0037] “an evacuation prediction system 100 in the first example embodiment of the present invention includes a prediction unit 110 that predicts time required for evacuees to evacuate based on evacuation information relating to evacuation paths for the evacuees and recovery information relating to recovery timing at a site where a trouble occurred in the evacuation paths”) and search for the route using the recovery time of the road. ([0040] “an evacuation route is, for example, a route from an evacuation origin to an evacuation destination. The evacuation origin and the evacuation destination are appropriately determined based on actual situations of evacuation and others. The evacuation route may be changed depending on a trouble occurrence and the status of recovery therefrom.”, Figure 2, and [0041] “FIG. 2 illustrates an example of evacuation paths and evacuation routes related to the status of recovery from a disaster.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the routing system of Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al., Nakumura et al., and Santo Akihiko to incorporate a recovery time to a route from a disaster as taught by Tadano for the purpose of ensuring the evacuation route is safe and adapted to changing disaster conditions.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley-Klay et al. (US 10807591 B1) in view of Morita et al. (WO-2021084698-A1), in view of Nakumura et al. (US 20090024320 A1), and further in view of Sakurada et al. (US 20200175863 A1).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood by the Examiner, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita
et al. and Nakumura et al. discloses The route search device according to claim 1,
However, Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: predict a recovery time of the passage of each road included in the routes using at least one of the history of the change in the ground surface and the history of the sensor information; predict a recovery time of each route candidate using the predicted recovery time of each road included in each route candidate; and search the route candidate that has the earliest recovery time among the predicted recovery times of the route candidates as the recommended route.
Sakurada et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: predict a recovery time of the passage of each road included in the routes using at least one of the history of the change in the ground surface and the history of the sensor information; ([0011] “The server generates removal state information including a predicted time which is required to remove a road obstacle based on the captured image data and transmits the removal state information to another onboard device and the other onboard device outputs the removal state information.”, and [0049] “receive, from a server, removal state information, which includes a predicted time which is required to remove a road obstacle and which is generated based on captured image data received from another onboard device by the server”)
predict a recovery time of each route candidate using the predicted recovery time of each road included in each route candidate; and (Figure 8, and [0059] “a case in which the predicted time which is required to remove the road obstacle is 20 minutes”) search the route candidate that has the earliest recovery time among the predicted recovery times of the route candidates as the recommended route. ([0060] “When the position 84 of the road obstacle is located on the route 83, the navigation unit 35 searches for an alternative route 88 and presents the searched alternative route to a user before the vehicle is caught in a traffic jam in the vicinity of the road obstacle. In this way, by acquiring captured image data from a vehicle 14 which already travels in the vicinity of the road obstacle from the server 10”). The Examiner notes: See “alternative route 88” as the recommended route.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the routing system Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. to incorporate prediction information (e.g. time) related to a road obstacle as taught by Minamata Yuri for the purpose of presenting to the user a removal state of a road obstacle and “provide an alternative route to the user before the vehicle is caught in a traffic jam in the vicinity of the road obstacle.” ([0080], Sakurada et al.)
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley-Klay et al. (US 10807591 B1) in view of Morita et al. (WO 2021084698 A1), in view of Nakumura et al. (US 20090024320 A1), and further in view of Koseki Mitsuaki (JP 2015161504 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al., and Nakumura et al. discloses
The route search device according to claim 1,
However, Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al., and Nakumura et al. fails to
explicitly disclose the one or more processors are further configured to: search for the route using posted road information.
Koseki Mitsuaki teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: search for the route using posted road information. ([0008] “the route search system of such a form, since it is possible to search for a route capable of avoiding traffic congestion according to the traffic congestion information message posted to the SNS server, traffic congestion information can be shared without using a dedicated device. In addition, traffic jam information can be used for route search.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the routing system of Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al. and Nakumura et al. to incorporate posted information as taught by Koseki Mitsuaki for the purpose of selecting/searching an optimal route, avoiding traffic congestion.
Regarding claim 11, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al., Nakumura et al., and Koseki
Mitsuaki discloses The route search device according to claim 10,
Koseki Mitsuaki teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: search for
the route using the posed road information posted on a social networking service. ([0008] “the route search system of such a form, since it is possible to search for a route capable of avoiding traffic congestion according to the traffic congestion information message posted to the SNS server, traffic congestion information can be shared without using a dedicated device. In addition, traffic jam information can be used for route search.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the routing system of Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al., Nakumura et al., and Koseki Mitsuaki to incorporate the teachings of Koseki Mitsuaki for the same reasons stated in the motivation of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Kentley-Klay et al. in view of Morita et al., Nakumura et al., and Koseki
Mitsuaki discloses The route search device according to claim 11,
Koseki Mitsuaki teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: generate
the passage information using the posted road information posted on the social networking service. ([0008] “the route search system of such a form, since it is possible to search for a route capable of avoiding traffic congestion according to the traffic congestion information message posted to the SNS server, traffic congestion information can be shared without using a dedicated device. In addition, traffic jam information can be used for route search.”, and [0011] “the message posting unit may further calculate an estimated time to arrive at the destination according to a result of the route search and post the calculated time to the SNS server. With such a form, for example, the arrival time can be notified to a person or the like who waits for the arrival of the user at the destination.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the routing system of Kentley-Klay et al. in combination with Morita et al., Nakumura et al., and Koseki Mitsuaki to incorporate the teachings of Koseki Mitsuaki for the same reasons stated in the motivation of claim 10.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666