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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2025 and 10/14/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of foreign application App # JP2022-014166, as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
"in a case where the classification of the object present in a space is a moving body" should read "in a case where [[the]] a classification of the object present in a space is a moving body" (claim 11)
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 6 and 8 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 recites “each of a plurality of moving bodies”. Claim 6, which depends directly on claim 1, recites “identification information of the moving body and a scheduled passage time of the moving body”. It is unclear if the formatting and storage occurring in claim 6 is performed for just one moving body or for each moving body of the plurality of moving bodies. As such, claim 6 is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “the moving body”.
Claim 8, which depends directly on claim 1, similarly recites “the moving body” and is rejected for the same reason as claim 6.
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 1-3 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, as determined by the Subject Matter Eligibility Test
detailed below.
Step 1
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 1, 15, and 16 are directed towards a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 15, and 16, and the corresponding dependent claims 2-14 are directed to a statutory category of invention under step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step
2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Regarding Prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those shown in bold below.
An information processing system comprising:
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as:
a formatting unit configured to give a unique identifier to a space in three dimensions defined by a prescribed criterion, and format and store space information regarding a state of an object present in the space and time in association with the unique identifier,
wherein the formatting unit formats and stores movement route information of each of a plurality of moving bodies in association with the unique identifier.
These limitations, as drafted, describe a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recites mental processes. For example, “give a unique identifier to a space in three dimensions defined by a prescribed criterion” may be interpreted as a mental determination made according to observable data, such as a person deciding to unofficially name the airspace above their home as “my airspace”, based on the prescribed criterion of its location above their property. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims -15 and 16 recite abstract limitations analogous to those identified above with respect to claim 1, and therefore recite abstract ideas per the same analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 2
If the claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A, Prong 2. In Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Regarding Prong 2, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Claim 1 recites additional elements including those underlined below.
An information processing system comprising:
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as:
a formatting unit configured to give a unique identifier to a space in three dimensions defined by a prescribed criterion, and format and store space information regarding a state of an object present in the space and time in association with the unique identifier,
wherein the formatting unit formats and stores movement route information of each of a plurality of moving bodies in association with the unique identifier.
The recitation of format and store space information regarding a state of an object present in the space and time in association with the unique identifier, wherein the formatting unit formats and stores movement route information of each of a plurality of moving bodies in association with the unique identifier amounts to mere storage of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, 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. The recitation of at least one processor or circuit configured to function as… and a formatting unit amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
Step 2B
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong 2, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether it provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of at least one processor or circuit configured to function as… and a formatting unit amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, format and store space information regarding a state of an object present in the space and time in association with the unique identifier, wherein the formatting unit formats and stores movement route information of each of a plurality of moving bodies in association with the unique identifier amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that mere storing and retrieving of information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 16 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing following processes” in the preamble, which amounts to merely generic components which allow the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). The examiner submits that these elements are mere computers or other machinery used as a tool to perform the existing process.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the various limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., further characterizing the storage of information). Therefore, dependent claims 2-3 and 5-14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 16.
Examiner notes that claim 4 recites “stopping of movement or slowing down of movement of the moving body”. This active control step changing the physical operation of a vehicle is considered to integrate the abstract ideas recited in claim 1 into practical application. As such, claim 4 is not rejected under 35 USC § 101. Examiner recommends incorporating similar active vehicle control steps (as opposed to storage and formatting of information) into independent claims in order to possibly overcome future subject matter eligibility rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210365040 A1 TOMONO; Masahiro et al. (hereinafter Tomono), in view of US 20210354690 A1 Yershov; Dmytro S. et al. (hereinafter Yershov).
Regarding claim 1, Tomono discloses: An information processing system (see Tomono at least [0010] a map production section configured to produce a map of the periphery of the robot body based on the detection information) comprising:
at least one processor (see Tomono at least [0050] The control unit 2 includes an arithmetic unit such as a CPU) or circuit configured to function as:
a formatting unit configured to divide a space in three dimensions defined by a prescribed criterion, and format and store space information regarding a state of an object present in the space and time in association with the divisions (see Tomono at least [0003] The occupancy grid map is configured such that a plane or a space of the movement area is divided into multiple sections (cells) and is stored and a cell value corresponding to the presence or absence of the object is provided to each divided section and [0050] the control unit 2 includes a map production section 25 relating to production of the later-described occupancy grid map),
wherein the formatting unit formats and stores movement route information of each of a plurality of moving bodies in association with the divisions (see Tomono at least [0065] Next, the control unit 2 causes the route control section 26 to store, in the storage section 30, the robot route information 32 indicating the movement route of the robot body 1 in the target space and to store, in the storage section 30, the movement body route information 33 indicating the movement route of the movement body 100 different from the robot body 1 (a route information production/updating step: the step ST7). The robot route information 32 is based on the occupancy grid map M produced as described above and various types of region information (the working region information 34, the exceptional region information 35, or the like.) and [0045] a traveling schedule for each target space (each movement area) stored in the control unit 2).
Tomono does not teach: a formatting unit configured to give a unique identifier to a space in three dimensions, and store space information… in association with the unique identifier.
However, Yershov teaches: a formatting unit configured to give a unique identifier to a space in three dimensions (see Yershov at least [0044] a dynamic occupancy grid (DOG)... The DOG is a two-dimensional (2D) surface or a three-dimensional (3D) volume divided into a series of contiguous grid cells or grid cubes. Each grid cell or grid cube is assigned a unique identifier and used for spatial indexing of the environment of the AV), and store space information… in association with the unique identifier (see Yershov at least [0044] Spatial indexing refers to storing and querying data in a data structure that represents objects defined in a geometric space, for example, the environment of the AV).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use system which divides space into smaller units disclosed by Tomono to include the indexing and unique identifiers assigned to the divided units of space of Yershov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the naming and indexing process allows for storage and retrieval of tracking information of objects in the operating environment of an autonomous vehicle, as suggested by Yershov (see Yershov at least [0044] One or more objects and free space in the environment of the AV are modeled as a collection of particles in the DOG… The particles are tracked by updating time-varying particle density functions across the DOG, and the updated particle density functions are used to determine probabilities of occupancy of the grid cells or grid cubes. The AV is operated in accordance with the probabilities of occupancy of the grid cells or grid cubes).
Regarding claim 2, Tomono and Yershov disclose: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as, a changing unit configured to change the movement route information of at least one moving body based on the movement route information of each of the plurality of moving bodies (see Tomono at least [0070] the movement route R1 of the robot body 1 is updated as needed to subsequently overlap with the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 as illustrated in FIG. 9(C)).
Regarding claim 3, Tomono and Yershov disclose: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as, a changing unit configured to change the movement route information of at least one moving body if determination is made that contact is likely to occur based on the movement route information of each of the plurality of moving bodies (see Yershov at least [0156] the DOG circuit not only determines whether the grid cell 1305, 1310 is occupied, but also infers movement of the occupying object 608. First, the DOG circuit determines whether the portion of the environment 190 is occupied, then it infers motion and [0097] a physical object 608 (e.g., a vehicle) and [0159] Responsive to determining that the particle density function indicates that a TTC between the AV 100 and the object 608 is less than a threshold TTC, the DOG circuit transmits a deceleration request to a control circuit 406 of the AV 100 and [0153] a time-to-collision (TTC)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use system disclosed by Tomono and Yershov to include the predicted-collision-dependent mobile unit routing modification of Yershov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because adjusting operation of the mobile unit through actions such as decelerating the vehicle may avoid an impending collision, as suggested by Yershov (see Yershov at least [0153] Responsive to determining that the TTC is less than the threshold time, the control module 406 operates the AV 100 to avoid a collision of the AV 100 and the vehicle 193).
Regarding claim 4, Tomono and Yershov disclose: The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the change includes stopping of movement or slowing down of movement of the moving body (see Tomono at least [0066] in a case where it is determined that traveling cannot be continued due to some kinds of inconsistency in the produced occupancy grid map M, various types of region information, the robot route information 32, the movement body route information 33, or the like, the control unit 2 may stop traveling of the robot body 1, and may continue a stop state until the map information, the region information, or the route information becomes consistent by subsequent updating or later).
Regarding claim 5, Tomono and Yershov disclose: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as, a warning unit configured to perform a warning if congestion or contact is likely to occur based on the movement route information of each of the plurality of moving bodies (see Yershov at least [0170] Responsive to determining that the TTC is less than a threshold time, the DOG circuit transmits a collision warning to a control circuit 406 of the AV 100 to avoid a collision of the AV 100 and the at least one object 608).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use system disclosed by Tomono and Yershov to include the predicted-collision-dependent mobile unit collision warning of Yershov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because sending a warning to the autonomous vehicle may motivate actions which can be taken to avoid an impending collision, as suggested by Yershov (see Yershov at least [0005] Responsive to determining that the TTC is less than a threshold time, the one or more processors transmit a collision warning to a control circuit of the vehicle to avoid a collision of the vehicle and the at least one object.).
Regarding claim 9, Tomono and Yershov disclose: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the formatting unit formats information regarding an update interval of the space information in association with the unique identifier (see Tomono at least [0057] The occupancy grid map M needs to be updated as needed to reflect an environmental change, and various forms of an update frequency, such as the case of performing update based on actual time and the case of regularly performing update every day, are conceivable).
Regarding claim 15, Tomono discloses: A control method (see Tomono at least [0097] a method) comprising:
a formatting step of dividing a space in three dimensions defined by a prescribed criterion, and formatting and storing space information regarding a state of an object present in the space and time in association with the divisions (see Tomono at least [0003] The occupancy grid map is configured such that a plane or a space of the movement area is divided into multiple sections (cells) and is stored and a cell value corresponding to the presence or absence of the object is provided to each divided section and [0050] the control unit 2 includes a map production section 25 relating to production of the later-described occupancy grid map),
wherein, in the formatting step, movement route information of each of a plurality of moving bodies is formatted and stored in association with the divisions (see Tomono at least [0065] Next, the control unit 2 causes the route control section 26 to store, in the storage section 30, the robot route information 32 indicating the movement route of the robot body 1 in the target space and to store, in the storage section 30, the movement body route information 33 indicating the movement route of the movement body 100 different from the robot body 1 (a route information production/updating step: the step ST7). The robot route information 32 is based on the occupancy grid map M produced as described above and various types of region information (the working region information 34, the exceptional region information 35, or the like.) and [0045] a traveling schedule for each target space (each movement area) stored in the control unit 2).
Tomono does not teach: a formatting step of giving a unique identifier to a space in three dimensions, and storing space information… in association with the unique identifier.
However, Yershov teaches: a formatting step of giving a unique identifier to a space in three dimensions (see Yershov at least [0044] a dynamic occupancy grid (DOG)... The DOG is a two-dimensional (2D) surface or a three-dimensional (3D) volume divided into a series of contiguous grid cells or grid cubes. Each grid cell or grid cube is assigned a unique identifier and used for spatial indexing of the environment of the AV), and storing space information… in association with the unique identifier (see Yershov at least [0044] Spatial indexing refers to storing and querying data in a data structure that represents objects defined in a geometric space, for example, the environment of the AV).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use method which divides space into smaller units disclosed by Tomono to include the indexing and unique identifiers assigned to the divided units of space of Yershov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the naming and indexing process allows for storage and retrieval of tracking information of objects in the operating environment of an autonomous vehicle, as suggested by Yershov (see Yershov at least [0044] One or more objects and free space in the environment of the AV are modeled as a collection of particles in the DOG… The particles are tracked by updating time-varying particle density functions across the DOG, and the updated particle density functions are used to determine probabilities of occupancy of the grid cells or grid cubes. The AV is operated in accordance with the probabilities of occupancy of the grid cells or grid cubes).
Regarding claim 16, Tomono discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see Tomono at least [0061] the storage section 30 to store instruction information) configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing following processes:
a formatting of divide a space in three dimensions defined by a prescribed criterion, and formatting and storing space information regarding a state of an object present in the space and time in association with the divisions (see Tomono at least [0003] The occupancy grid map is configured such that a plane or a space of the movement area is divided into multiple sections (cells) and is stored and a cell value corresponding to the presence or absence of the object is provided to each divided section and [0050] the control unit 2 includes a map production section 25 relating to production of the later-described occupancy grid map),
wherein, in the formatting, movement route information of each of a plurality of moving bodies is formatted and stored in association with the divisions (see Tomono at least [0065] Next, the control unit 2 causes the route control section 26 to store, in the storage section 30, the robot route information 32 indicating the movement route of the robot body 1 in the target space and to store, in the storage section 30, the movement body route information 33 indicating the movement route of the movement body 100 different from the robot body 1 (a route information production/updating step: the step ST7). The robot route information 32 is based on the occupancy grid map M produced as described above and various types of region information (the working region information 34, the exceptional region information 35, or the like.) and [0045] a traveling schedule for each target space (each movement area) stored in the control unit 2).
Tomono does not teach: a formatting of giving a unique identifier to a space in three dimensions, and storing space information… in association with the unique identifier.
However, Yershov teaches: a formatting of giving a unique identifier to a space in three dimensions (see Yershov at least [0044] a dynamic occupancy grid (DOG)... The DOG is a two-dimensional (2D) surface or a three-dimensional (3D) volume divided into a series of contiguous grid cells or grid cubes. Each grid cell or grid cube is assigned a unique identifier and used for spatial indexing of the environment of the AV), and storing space information… in association with the unique identifier (see Yershov at least [0044] Spatial indexing refers to storing and querying data in a data structure that represents objects defined in a geometric space, for example, the environment of the AV).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use storage medium which divides space into smaller units disclosed by Tomono to include the indexing and unique identifiers assigned to the divided units of space of Yershov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the naming and indexing process allows for storage and retrieval of tracking information of objects in the operating environment of an autonomous vehicle, as suggested by Yershov (see Yershov at least [0044] One or more objects and free space in the environment of the AV are modeled as a collection of particles in the DOG… The particles are tracked by updating time-varying particle density functions across the DOG, and the updated particle density functions are used to determine probabilities of occupancy of the grid cells or grid cubes. The AV is operated in accordance with the probabilities of occupancy of the grid cells or grid cubes).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono, in view of Yershov, and further in view of US 20200294396 A1 Cross; Brad (hereinafter Cross).
Regarding claim 6, Tomono and Yershov disclose: The information processing system according to claim 1.
Tomono and Yershov do not teach: wherein the formatting unit formats and stores, as the movement route information, the unique identifier in association with identification information of the moving body and a scheduled passage time of the moving body.
However, Cross teaches: wherein the formatting unit formats and stores, as the movement route information, the unique identifier in association with identification information of the moving body and a scheduled passage time of the moving body (see Cross at least [0072] Information related to the routes of mass transit vehicles may be stored in a database, which may be remote in a traffic control center, or onboard the mass transit vehicle in question. This information may be associated with a unique identifier for the mass transit vehicle, and that unique identifier may be transmitted to a traffic controller or traffic control center along with the updated locational coordinates for the mass transit vehicle as part of the operation of a VCU. Thus, as a given vehicle approaches an intersection, the vehicle's unique identifier and location are transmitted, and if the vehicle is detected in the detection zone, the schedule can be consulted to determine whether that vehicle is expected to proceed straight through the intersection, or make a turn).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use storage system disclosed by Tomono and Yershov to include the storage of routing and timing information of specific vehicles of Cross. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because information regarding future plans of a vehicle can influence changes made in the surrounding infrastructure to promote operation of said vehicle in a timely manner, as suggested by Cross (see Cross at least [0021] In an embodiment, the system further comprises a database including at least one predetermined schedule for the special vehicle, and wherein the controller additionally controls the signal light to operate in the default mode of operation or in the alternate mode of operation based on the at least one predetermined schedule of the special vehicle).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono, in view of Yershov, and further in view of JP 2006133863 A ODA TOYOO et al. (hereinafter Oda).
Regarding claim 7, Tomono and Yershov disclose: The information processing system according to claim 3.
Tomono and Yershov do not teach: wherein, if contact is likely to occur based on the movement route information of each of the plurality of moving bodies, the changing unit changes the movement route information of the moving body having a low priority level based on priority levels of the plurality of moving bodies.
However, Oda teaches: wherein, if contact is likely to occur based on the movement route information of each of the plurality of moving bodies, the changing unit changes the movement route information of the moving body having a low priority level based on priority levels of the plurality of moving bodies (see Oda at least [pg. 4, para. 7, beginning with “’Retreat’ in the present”] “Retreat” in the present invention means that the non-priority robot moves to the retreat position and waits for the avoidance of the priority robot at this retreat position. And [pg. 4, para. 8, beginning with “Further ‘Avoidance’ in the present”] Further, “avoidance” in the present invention means that the priority robot moves while avoiding the non-priority robot waiting at the retreat position).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use system disclosed by Tomono and Yershov to include the retreat of a lower priority robot when its path may collide with that of a higher priority robot of Oda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because instructing one robot to move out of the way while another passes by avoids the otherwise likely collision, as suggested by Oda (see Oda at least [pg. 4, para. 9, beginning with “in this way”] In this way, by causing each of the two robots that may collide to retreat and avoid, the collision can be surely avoided).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono, in view of Yershov, further in view of JP 2021103091 A YOKOYAMA YOSHINORI (hereinafter Yokoyama).
Regarding claim 8, Tomono and Yershov disclose: The information processing system according to claim 1.
Tomono and Yershov do not teach: wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as, a route generation unit configured to generate route information relating to the movement route of the moving body based on the space information acquired from the formatting unit and classification information of the moving body.
However, Yokoyama teaches: wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as, a route generation unit configured to generate route information relating to the movement route of the moving body based on the space information acquired from the formatting unit and classification information of the moving body (see Yokoyama at least [pg. 4, para. 1, beginning with “The rouse search unit”] the route search unit 14 is based on the departure point information and the destination information included in the route search request received from the in-vehicle devices 31, 41, 51, and the travel history information of each vehicle type stored in the travel history database 13a).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use system disclosed by Tomono and Yershov to include the vehicle-type-specific choice of a traveling route of Yokoyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because consideration of the type of vehicle to be traveling upon a route influences the route itself due to the abilities of different vehicles to travel on different roads, lane widths, etc., as suggested by Yokoyama (see Yokoyama at least [pg. 4, para. 1, beginning with “The rouse search unit”] Search for a route on which the vehicle that made the search request can travel).
Claim(s) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono, in view of Yershov, further in view of WO 2020226085 A1 WATANABE, RYO et al. (hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 10, Tomono and Yershov disclose: The information processing system according to claim 9.
Tomono and Yershov do not teach: wherein the information regarding the update interval is different depending on a kind of an object present in the space.
However, Watanabe teaches: wherein the information regarding the update interval is different depending on a kind of an object present in the space (see Watanabe at least [pg. 20, para. 2, beginning with “For example, when a large”] For example, when a large number of animals are detected in the divided region 35, it is set that there is a need for updating, and the updating frequency is also set to be higher than usual).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use system disclosed by Tomono and Yershov to include the adjustment of map information updating frequency depending on relevant object classification of Watanabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because updating sections of information only as much as is necessary given the content of the space improves processing speed by decreasing gratuitous updates, as suggested by Watanabe (see Watanabe at least [pg. 17, para. 11, beginning with “For example, it is assumed”] a relatively small size split region 35 is set to include the region where the animal body is detected. As a result, it is possible to reduce the processing load when the divided map information 36 corresponding to the divided area 35 is updated, and it is possible to improve the processing speed).
Regarding claim 11¸ Tomono, Yershov, and Watanabe disclose: The information processing system according to claim 10, wherein, in a case where the classification of the object present in the space is a moving body, the information regarding the update interval is shorter than in a case where the classification of the object present in the space is not a moving body (see Watanabe at least [pg. 20, para. 2, beginning with “For example, when a large”] when a large number of animals are detected in the divided region 35, it is set that there is a need for updating, and the updating frequency is also set to be higher than usual. For example, when many stationary objects are detected in the divided area 35, it is set that there is no need for updating. Alternatively, the update frequency is set less frequently than usual).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use system disclosed by Tomono and Yershov to include the adjustment of map information updating frequency depending on relevant object classification of Watanabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because updating sections of information only as much as is necessary given the content of the space improves processing speed by decreasing gratuitous updates, as suggested by Watanabe (see Watanabe at least [pg. 17, para. 11, beginning with “For example, it is assumed”] a relatively small size split region 35 is set to include the region where the animal body is detected. As a result, it is possible to reduce the processing load when the divided map information 36 corresponding to the divided area 35 is updated, and it is possible to improve the processing speed).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono, in view of Yershov, and further in view of US 11473925 B2 Sheha; Michael et al. (hereinafter Sheha).
Regarding claim 12, Tomono and Yershov disclose: The information processing system according to claim 1.
Tomono and Yershov do not teach: wherein, in a case where the movement route information is formatted and stored in association with the unique identifier discretely, information for between pieces of discrete movement route information is estimated and used.
However, Sheha teaches: wherein, in a case where the movement route information is formatted and stored in association with the unique identifier discretely, information for between pieces of discrete movement route information is estimated and used (see Sheha at least [col. 3, lines 30-35] a solution that enables an application to dynamically generate, based on various route generation preferences, estimated and predictive routes using location information that was generated from a mobile positioning device sending discrete location updates of its position over various periods of time).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use system disclosed by Tomono and Yershov to include the route estimation between defined location information points of Sheha. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because estimating route information between discrete locations allows for a variety of functionalities and user conveniences without requiring excessive storage for all points along a route, as suggested by Sheha (see Sheha at least [col. 3, lines 16-24] a method and system that can create a dynamic estimated route between various discrete locations would provide a number of improvements over existing prior art, such as providing a better illustration of the data, which has inherent limitations due to its being discrete location data, extrapolating total driving distance from a set of discrete location updates, and providing to the user an ability to save the calculated estimated route or plan new routes from the existing location information).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono, in view of Yershov, and further in view of US 20180257645 A1 BUBURUZAN; Teodor et al. (hereinafter Buburuzan).
Regarding claim 13, Tomono and Yershov disclose: The information processing system according to claim 3.
Tomono and Yershov do not teach: wherein, in a case where contact is likely to occur, the movement route information of at least one moving body is changed by performing communication between at least two moving bodies.
However, Buburuzan teaches: wherein, in a case where contact is likely to occur, the movement route information of at least one moving body is changed by performing communication between at least two moving bodies (see Buburuzan at least [0013] The device may then, for example, transmit this driving intention, which may comprise the expected trajectory, to the other vehicles, for example, via vehicle-to-vehicle communication. These other vehicles may then adjust their own planned trajectories, for example, based on the driving intention, to avoid collisions).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use system disclosed by Tomono and Yershov to include the vehicle-to-vehicle communication regarding possible collisions and relevant route modification of Buburuzan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because communication between vehicles allows each to consider the implications of its own future trajectory as it relates with those of other vehicles, improving safety for all vehicles involved, as suggested by Buburuzan (see Buburuzan at least [0012] an improved concept to allow vehicles to take one another into consideration, and to improve driving safety of the vehicles involved).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono, in view of Yershov, and further in view of JP 2022003560 A SHIMODAIRA SEIJI et al. (hereinafter Shimodaira).
Regarding claim 14, Tomono and Yershov disclose: The information processing system according to claim 1.
Tomono and Yershov do not teach: wherein, in a case where a scheduled movement start time in the movement route information and an actual movement start time deviate by a prescribed time or more, the movement route information of at least one moving body is changed.
However, Shimodaira teaches: wherein, in a case where a scheduled movement start time in the movement route information and an actual movement start time deviate by a prescribed time or more, the movement route information of at least one moving body is changed (see Shimodaira at least [pg. 10, para. 4, beginning with “For example”] it is assumed that the first user gets on the carpool vehicle first and the second user gets on the carpool later. Then, it is assumed that a delay event occurs during the shared ride, and the delay of the scheduled disembarkation time of the first user is out of the allowable range of the scheduled disembarkation time determined at the time of reservation of the shared vehicle Vn. In such a case, in the present embodiment, the control for switching the second user from the shared vehicle to the transfer vehicle is executed. By switching to the transfer vehicle by the second user, the shared vehicle Vn after the second user gets off can travel on the shortest travel route with respect to the disembarkation position of the first user)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile vehicle routing occupancy grid map development and use system disclosed by Tomono and Yershov to include the modification of vehicle routes in response to delays in the traveling of other vehicle(s) along their respective routes of Shimodaira. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because delays at any point in the transportation process can lead to delayed arrival, but changing the route of a different vehicle to decrease the burden of a first vehicle can minimize overall delays for all vehicle’s outcomes, as suggested by Shimodaira (see Shimodaira at least [pg. 10, para. 4, beginning with “For example”] Therefore, it is possible to suppress the delay of the scheduled disembarkation time of the first user).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 6709055 B2. Describes modification of one mobile unit’s routing in response to another vehicle’s routing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLE ROSE KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1742. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 ET M-F.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ELLE ROSE KNUDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
12/18/25
Prosecution Insights