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 .
The current application relates to PCT/JP2022/002481 filed on Jan. 24, 2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/23/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive to overcome the rejection. Examiner responds to the Applicant’s argument as the following reasons:
Regarding the claimed Rejection under 103: At page 5 through page 6, Applicant traversed that Sorin and Inoue fail to disclose “the weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges are determined based on at least a weight of the object transported by the machine during movement on the road corresponding to each edge, and a difference in altitude between points corresponding to two node connected by each edge”. Examiner respectively disagrees.
Examiner Response: Sorin discloses the claimed subject matter but fails to teach
Sorin fails to teach the weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges are determined based on a difference in altitude between points corresponding to two nodes connected by each edge.
Inoue teaches that a driving route selection system of an electric truck such that when the driving area in a map information is classified into a low altitude area and a high-altitude area according to the height of the altitude, the optimal route be selected to drive in the low-lying area with a relative heavy total loading weight and to drive in the high-altitude area with a relatively light total loading weight. As a result, numerical data such as the amount of regenerative power of the motor and the running power consumption of the electric truck are taken into account, and the selection of the optimal route can be performed (see [0020]+). The map information acquisition unit of the truck (vehicle) acquires the transport weight information on the ascent roads, the downhill roads, wherein the roads includes two points with different altitudes (see Fig. 3 & [0048]-[0052]+).
The combination of Sorin in view of Inoue is obvious (see the updated 103 Rejection for more detail).
Regarding the claimed Rejection under 101: Applicant argues that the claims with feature “output the determined path” is not a mental process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention, as a whole, is directed towards performing abstract ideas. The “output determined path” step and the “processor circuit” have been evaluated as an additional step and element in Step 2A pong two and Step 2B which do not improve the functioning of a computer or technological field but rather recites the implementation of an abstract idea using generic computer components. Therefore, the 101 Rejection of claims 1-12, and additional new claims 13-16 are maintained.
If the new claim 17 is added into the independent claim 1, the 101 rejection will be withdrawn.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim shown:
Claim 1. A path planning device for planning a path on which a machine capable of transporting an object moves, the path planning device comprising: at least one processor circuit and a memory storing instructions, that when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to at least:
acquire a graph including a plurality of nodes corresponding to a plurality of points and a plurality of edges corresponding to a plurality of roads connecting the plurality of points;
determine weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges; and
select a start point and an end point from the plurality of nodes, and determine a path from the start point to the end point based on the weights assigned to the plurality of edges,
Output the determined path, wherein the weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges are determined based on a difference in altitude between points corresponding to two nodes connected by each edge.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim cites a device including at least one processor and memory storing instruction for performing at least one step function (shown in bolding). The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim cites the limitation of “acquire a graph including a plurality of nodes and edges corresponding to roads connecting the points and the edges; determine weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges; and select a start point and an end point from the nodes, and determine a path based on the weights assigned to the edges; wherein the weights determined based on a weight of an object transported by the machine, and a difference in altitude between points. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of by “at least one processor circuit”. That is, other than reciting by the “at least one processor circuit” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by the processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim cites additional step of “Output the determined path,” that amounts to mere post solution outputting (or displaying) which is a form of insignificant post solution. The “path planning device” comprises the processor circuit and a memory storing instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose determining a path on the road, i.e. a computer.
Accordingly, the recitation of a processor and memory merely describes the general application of mental judgments using a generic computer to determine a path on a road, and output the determined path which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional step, and elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the acquiring, selecting, determining, and output the determined path steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the claims’ specification does not provide any indication that the “path planning device” is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Accordingly, a conclusion that the gathering, determining, and output the determined path steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-16 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
The claimed step of claim 17 with “wherein outputting the determined path includes transmitting the determined path to the machine to cause the machine to autonomously travel according to the determined path” is an improvement to the vehicle technology for navigation performance, and accordingly, this limitation would integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a).
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) 1-2 & 6-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorin (20190217857) in view of Inoue (WO2018021027).
With regard to claim 1, Sorin discloses a path planning device for planning a path on which a machine capable of transporting an object moves, the path planning device comprising: at least one processor circuit and a memory storing instructions, that when executed by the processor circuit (a vehicle 102 comprises a computer system 200 which includes a motion planner 280, and etc., see [0094]+), cause the processor circuit to at least:
acquire a graph including a plurality of nodes corresponding to a plurality of points and a plurality of edges corresponding to a plurality of roads connecting the plurality of points (A planning graph for the vehicle 102 comprises nodes, edges, and etc. see [0115]+) ;
determine weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges; and select a start point and an end point from the plurality of nodes (Each edge of the planning graphs 400 and 500 assigned by a weight, see [0113]+); and
determine a path from the start point to the end point based on the weights assigned to the plurality of edges (the motion planner 280 performs an optimization to identify a path with a high potential of a collision with the dynamic object, see [0111]-[0113]+).
Sorin fails to teach the weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges are determined based on a difference in altitude between points corresponding to two nodes connected by each edge.
Inoue discloses an electric truck 1 has a ECU, a navigation device, a communication, and etc. Wherein the ECU2 comprises an optimal route selection part 14 calculates the amount of regenerative power (Egin 100) of the downhill road 60 and the running power consumption of the uphill road 70 (Elos 20), and etc., see Fig.3, [0052]+, and the transportation route information includes a downhill/uphill road with a predetermined slope or higher, the optimal route is selected with a relative heavy/light total load weight, see [0053]+, which meets the scope of “the weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges are determined based on at least a weight of the object transported by the machine during movement on the road corresponding to each edge, and a difference in altitude between points corresponding to two nodes connected by each edge”, wherein the downhill/uphill and loading weights are equivalent altitude and weight of the object according).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sorin by including the weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges are determined based on a difference in altitude between points corresponding to two nodes connected by each edge as taught by Inoue for providing an optimal routes with greater accuracy.
With regard to claims 2, Inoue teaches that the vehicle’s ECU2 calculates the running power consumption of the uphill road (Elos 100) and the regenerative power amount of the downhill road (Egin 80), see [0052]+ which meet the scope of “the weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges are determined further based on a distance between the points corresponding to the two nodes connected by each edge”.
With regard to claim 6, Inoue teaches that the path planning device according to claim 1, wherein the machine has a regenerative brake mechanism, and the weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges are determined further based on an amount of energy recovered by the regenerative brake mechanism (the vehicle’s ECU2 calculates the running power consumption of the uphill road (Elos 100) and the regenerative power amount of the downhill road (Egin 80), see [0052]+).
With regard to claim 7, Inoue teaches that the path planning device according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to acquire a work plan indicating a point where the object is loaded and unloaded, and select the start point and the end point based on the work plan (The transport weight information pertaining to the loading capacity and the unloading capacity, see [0049]+).
With regard to claim 8, Inoue teaches that the path planning device according to claim 7, wherein each time the weight of the object transported by the machine changes, the weights of the plurality of edges are determined based on the changed weight (the ECU2 estimates the change information of the load capacity that fluctuates during transportation based on the transportation weight information, see [0050]-[0051]+).
With regard to claim 9, Sorin teaches that the path planning device according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to generate an image visually indicating the weights assigned to the plurality of edges (Fig.4B is a motion planning graph 400 for the vehicle 102, wherein the planning graph is equivalent of “visual image”, see [0012]+).
With regard to claim 10-12, Sorin teaches that the path planning device according to claim 1, wherein the machine is an autonomously vehicle which moves according to the determined path, and the vehicle’s system is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (an autonomous vehicle 102 comprises one or more no transitory machines-readable storage media, see [0095]+).
With regard to claim 13, Inoue teaches that the path planning device according to claim 1, wherein the weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges are determined further based on a weight of the object transported by the machine during movement on the road corresponding to each edge (loaded weight on the machined to drive on the classified into a downhill area and a non-downhill area, see [0014]+).
With regard to claim 14, Inoue teaches that the path planning device according to claim 1, wherein outputting the determined path includes transmitting the determined path to the machine (transmits map information, transportation weight information, and other information to the electric truck, see [0044]+).
With regard to claim 15, Inoue teaches that the path planning device according to claim 1, wherein outputting the determined path includes storing the determined path in a storage device (see [0041]+).
With regard to claim 16, Inoue teaches that the path planning device according to claim 1, wherein outputting the determined path includes displaying the determined path to a user via a display device (the navigation device 4 displays the optimal route selected to the driver of the truck, see [0041]+).
With regard to claim 17, Inoue teaches that the path planning device according to claim 1, wherein outputting the determined path includes transmitting the determined path to the machine to cause the machine to autonomously travel according to the determined path (performing optimization on the planning graph to identify a path and generating motion plan based on the opination, see [0004]+, [0141]-[0142]) .
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorin (20190217857) in view of Inoue (WO2018021027) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neaf (WO2018130574).
With regard to claim 3, Inoue and Sorin disclose the claimed subject matter but fail to teaches that the weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges are determined further based on an upper limit speed of the machine during movement on the road corresponding to each edge.
Neaf discloses a system for predicting driving conditions for a vehicle (see the abstract). The system assigns each edge (corresponding route section) a weight which including distance, speed limit, driving power, (see page 6+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sorin by including the weights to be assigned to the plurality of edges are determined based on a difference in altitude between points corresponding to two nodes connected by each edge as taught by Inoue, and further including to determine the speed limit of the machine during movement on the road as taught by Neaf. The combination of Sorin, Inoue and Neaf is an adapted system for improving the vehicle’s navigation performance.
With regard to claims 4-5, Inoue teaches that the path planning device according to claim 3, wherein the upper limit speed of the machine is determined to satisfy a condition related to a braking distance of the machine and the weight of the object transported by the machine (the ECU2 calculates the amount of regenerative power of the motor and the running power consumption of the electric truck based on the loading weight for each driving section of each transportation route, see [0051], wherein the “amount of regenerative power” relates to the “braking distance of the machine”).
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Beaurepaire (20220065633) discloses a system for computing a recommended a tour sequence based on multiple points of interest (see the abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights