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 .
Claims 1 thru 17 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: From Figure 10, reference number “238” is not in the specification (different from S238). From Figure 19, reference numbers “701-22”, “701-23” and “701-24” are not in the specification. From Figure 20, reference numbers “702-21” and “702-22” are not in the specification in the description of Figure 20 (P[0189]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0141] lines 1 and 2 recite, “confirmation screen 50 and the map display screen 60 described with reference to FIGS. 2 and 3”. The reference numbers and the Figure numbers do not match the drawings. The confirmation screen 50 is recited in Figure 3A, and the map display screen 60 is recited in Figure 3B.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0185] line 3, the reference numbers “701-21, 702-22, 702-23, and 702-24” are recited in reference to Figure 19. Figure 19 recites “701-21, 701-22, 701-23, and 701-24”, the specification should be amended to reflect the same numbers.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term BLU-RAY DISC (P[0101] last line), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an acquisition unit configured to acquire, and a control unit configured to generate in claim 2; and a display unit for displaying in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The claimed “acquisition unit” is not recited in the disclosure, with the exception claim 2. There is no structure of the claimed acquisition unit. The claimed control unit is interpreted as a CPU of a computer (P[0058], P[0062], P[0072], P[0084], P[0094]). The claimed display unit is interpreted as a liquid crystal screen or the like (P[0056])
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is not a description of the claimed acquisition unit in the specification. There is not a recitation of any structure, or even a function of the acquisition unit outside of claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “an acquisition unit configured to acquire” of claim 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no recited structure to the claimed acquisition unit, and the only recitation of an “acquisition unit” is in claim 2 itself. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3 and 11 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 3 recites the limitation "the space" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear if this “space” is referring to the “three-dimensional space” of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the space" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear if this “space” is referring to the “three-dimensional space” of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 thru 8 and 10 thru 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 2 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 2 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 15 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claim 15 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 16 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claim 16 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 17 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A control system comprising:
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as:
a formatting unit configured to format spatial information about a type of physical object capable of existing in or entering a three-dimensional space in association with a unique identifier; and
a control unit configured to generate route information about a movement route of a mobile object on the basis of the spatial information acquired from the formatting unit and type information of the mobile object.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person perform formatting of information about a type of object in a particular space where that object can be uniquely identified, and then a person can decide on route information that would allow a vehicle to move around or avoid the object. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent claim 2 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 2 recites:
A control system comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire spatial information about a type of physical object capable of existing in or entering a three-dimensional space from a database obtained by formatting the spatial information in association with a unique identifier; and
a control unit configured to generate route information about a movement route of a mobile object on the basis of the spatial information acquired by the acquisition unit and type information of the mobile object.
Independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 15 recites:
A control method comprising:
formatting spatial information about a type of physical object capable of existing in or entering a three-dimensional space in association with a unique identifier; and
generating route information about a movement route of a mobile object on the basis of the spatial information acquired in the formatting and type information of the mobile object.
Independent claim 16 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 16 recites:
A control method comprising:
acquiring spatial information about a type of physical object capable of existing in or entering a three-dimensional space from a database in which the spatial information is formatted and saved in association with a unique identifier; and
generating route information about a movement route of a mobile object on the basis of the spatial information acquired in the acquiring and type information of the mobile object.
Independent claim 17 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 17 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing following processes:
acquiring spatial information about a type of physical object capable of existing in or entering a three-dimensional space from a database in which the spatial information is formatted and saved in association with a unique identifier; and
generating route information about a movement route of a mobile object on the basis of the spatial information acquired in the acquiring and type information of the mobile object.
Therefore, each of independent claims 2 and 15 thru 17 recite at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), 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 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.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim 1 are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A control system comprising:
at least one processor or circuit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))configured to function as:
a formatting unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) configured to format spatial information about a type of physical object capable of existing in or entering a three-dimensional space in association with a unique identifier; and
a control unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) configured to generate route information about a movement route of a mobile object on the basis of the spatial information acquired from the formatting unit and type information of the mobile object.
The formatting unit and control unit are interpreted as part of the processor.
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of a processor or circuit that includes a formatting unit and a control unit, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim 2 are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A control system comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire spatial information about a type of physical object capable of existing in or entering a three-dimensional space from a database obtained by formatting the spatial information in association with a unique identifier; and
a control unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) configured to generate route information about a movement route of a mobile object on the basis of the spatial information acquired by the acquisition unit and type information of the mobile object.
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of a control unit, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 2 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 2 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim 15 are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A control method comprising:
formatting spatial information about a type of physical object capable of existing in or entering a three-dimensional space in association with a unique identifier; and
generating route information about a movement route of a mobile object on the basis of the spatial information acquired in the formatting and type information of the mobile object.
For the following reasons, there are no additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, there are not additional limitations to integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For these reasons, claim 15 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim 16 are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A control method comprising:
acquiring spatial information about a type of physical object capable of existing in or entering a three-dimensional space from a database in which the spatial information is formatted and saved in association with a unique identifier; and
generating route information about a movement route of a mobile object on the basis of the spatial information acquired in the acquiring and type information of the mobile object.
For the following reasons, there are no additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, there are not additional limitations to integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For these reasons, claim 16 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim 17 are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) comprising instructions for executing following processes:
acquiring spatial information about a type of physical object capable of existing in or entering a three-dimensional space from a database in which the spatial information is formatted and saved in association with a unique identifier; and
generating route information about a movement route of a mobile object on the basis of the spatial information acquired in the acquiring and type information of the mobile object.
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of a store a computer program (memory), this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 17 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 17 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 2, and 15 thru 17 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the claims, the additional limitations of a processor or circuit that includes a formatting unit and a control unit, a control unit and storing a computer program, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims 3 thru 8 and 10 thru 14 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim 3 is directed to: spatial information includes at least one of items of information about a movement direction limit and a time limit in the space (defining the spatial information).
Dependent claim 4 is directed to: a display unit for displaying the route information (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 5 is directed to: a user interface for inputting (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) at least a departure point and an arrival point of the mobile object.
Dependent claim 6 is directed to: the mobile object generates a three-dimensional map on the basis of the spatial information (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 7 is directed to: at least one processor or circuit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is further configured to function as, an update unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) configured to update the spatial information on the basis of information from an external sensor in accordance with movement of the mobile object (extra-solution activity (data gathering), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). (claimed update unit is interpreted as part of the processor)
Dependent claim 8 is directed to: the control unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) generates a cost map on the basis of the spatial information.
Dependent claim 10 is directed to: the control unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) shares spatial information of spaces adjacent to each other on the basis of the spatial information.
Dependent claim 11 is directed to: the unique identifier is used to designate a position of the space when the spatial information is acquired from an information source in which the spatial information is stored at the time of formatting of the spatial information in association with the unique identifier. (defining the use of the unique identifier)
Dependent claim 12 is directed to: the spatial information is acquired from two or more information sources. (defining the source of information)
Dependent claim 13 is directed to: an information source from which the spatial information is acquired is decided according to an information update frequency in the information source. (defining criteria for using a source)
Dependent claim 14 is directed to: an information source from which the spatial information is acquired is decided on the basis of a position of the three-dimensional space. (defining criteria for using a source)
These limitations are extra-solution activity, or part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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 thru 7 and 10 thru 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi et al Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0168402 A1 in view of Levinson et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0248963 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 15 Iguchi et al teach the claimed control system, a three-dimensional data encoding and decoding system (Figure 1), and the claimed control method, the flowcharts for encoding and decoding processes (Figures 66 and 67), the control system comprising:
the claimed processor or circuit, “The three-dimensional data encoding device may include a part of a plurality of processors included in three-dimensional data encoding system 4601.” P[0134], and “The three-dimensional data decoding device may include a part of a plurality of processors included in three-dimensional data decoding system 4602.” P[0143], configured to:
the claimed format spatial information about a type of physical object capable of existing in or entering a 3D space in association with a unique identifier, “the three-dimensional data encoding device generates pieces of encoded geometry information and pieces of encoded attribute information by respectively encoding the pieces of divided geometry information and the pieces of divided attribute information (S5016)” (P[0519] and Figure 66); and
the claimed generate route information about a mobile object based on the acquired spatial information and the type information, automated driving of a vehicle requires point cloud data of an area surrounding a vehicle or an area in a traveling direction of a vehicle P[0447], and “When a vehicle requires point cloud data of a surrounding area, the three-dimensional data encoding device transmits, to the vehicle, point cloud data of an area including columns (circles in top view) surrounding the vehicle.” (P[0478] and Figure 56).
Iguchi et al do not explicitly teach the claimed generated route information is a movement route for the mobile object, but the point cloud data of Iguchi et al is used for automated driving, which would typically require a route for the automatic control of the vehicle. Levinson et al teach, “perception engine 366 may be able to detect and classify external objects as pedestrians, bicyclists, dogs, other vehicles, etc. (e.g., perception engine 366 is configured to classify the objects in accordance with a type of classification, which may be associated with semantic information, including a label)” (P[0066] and Figure 3A), “Perception engine 466 is configured to, for example, assist planner 464 in planning routes and generating trajectories by identifying objects of interest in a surrounding environment in which autonomous vehicle 430 is transiting.” (P[0072] and Figure 4), “perception engine 466 includes an object detector 442 and an object classifier 444. Object detector 442 is configured to distinguish objects relative to other features in the environment, and object classifier 444 may be configured to classify objects as either dynamic or static objects and track the locations of the dynamic and the static objects relative to autonomous vehicle 430 for planning purposes.” P[0072], “Planner 464 is configured to generate a number of candidate trajectories for accomplishing a goal to reaching a destination via a number of paths or routes that are available. Trajectory evaluator 465 is configured to evaluate candidate trajectories and identify which subsets of candidate trajectories are associated with higher degrees of confidence levels of providing collision-free paths to the destination.” P[0073], and “static and dynamic object map data 667 may be transmitted with other data, such as semantic classification information and predicted object behavior. Planner process 664 is configured to generate trajectories data 665, which describes a number of trajectories generated by planner 664.” P[0077].
The generation of trajectories of Levinson et al would be included as part of the automatic driving control of Iguchi et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the three-dimensional data encoding and decoding systems and methods of the Iguchi et al with the control of a generation of trajectories of Levinson et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce collisions, optimize user experience (user comfort), and provide collision-free trajectories that comply with traffic regulations and laws (Levinson et al P[0073]).
Regarding claims 2, 16 and 17 Iguchi et al teach the claimed control system, a three-dimensional data encoding and decoding system (Figure 1), the claimed control method, the flowcharts for encoding and decoding processes (Figures 66 and 67), the claimed computer readable storage medium to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing process, “may be implemented as a system, a method, an integrated circuit, a computer program, or a computer-readable recording medium such as a CD-ROM, or may be implemented as any combination of a system, a method, an integrated circuit, a computer program, and a recording medium” P[0126], configured to:
the claimed acquire spatial information about a type of physical object capable of existing in or entering a 3D space from a database obtained by formatting the spatial information in association with a unique identifier, “the three-dimensional data encoding device generates pieces of encoded geometry information and pieces of encoded attribute information by respectively encoding the pieces of divided geometry information and the pieces of divided attribute information (S5016)” (P[0519] and Figure 66), “FIG. 58 is a diagram illustrating an example of data of tiles stored in a server. For example, point cloud data is divided into tiles and encoded in advance, and the obtained encoded data is stored in a server. A user obtains the data of desired tiles from the server when necessary.” (P[0486] and Figure 58) (the server equates to the claimed database), and the server is in communication with the vehicles to provide the tile data (Figure 58); and
the claimed generate route information about a mobile object based on the acquired spatial information and the type information, automated driving of a vehicle requires point cloud data of an area surrounding a vehicle or an area in a traveling direction of a vehicle P[0447], and “When a vehicle requires point cloud data of a surrounding area, the three-dimensional data encoding device transmits, to the vehicle, point cloud data of an area including columns (circles in top view) surrounding the vehicle.” (P[0478] and Figure 56).
Iguchi et al do not explicitly teach the claimed generated route information is a movement route for the mobile object, but the point cloud data of Iguchi et al is used for automated driving, which would typically require a route for the automatic control of the vehicle. Levinson et al teach, “perception engine 366 may be able to detect and classify external objects as pedestrians, bicyclists, dogs, other vehicles, etc. (e.g., perception engine 366 is configured to classify the objects in accordance with a type of classification, which may be associated with semantic information, including a label)” (P[0066] and Figure 3A), “Perception engine 466 is configured to, for example, assist planner 464 in planning routes and generating trajectories by identifying objects of interest in a surrounding environment in which autonomous vehicle 430 is transiting.” (P[0072] and Figure 4), “perception engine 466 includes an object detector 442 and an object classifier 444. Object detector 442 is configured to distinguish objects relative to other features in the environment, and object classifier 444 may be configured to classify objects as either dynamic or static objects and track the locations of the dynamic and the static objects relative to autonomous vehicle 430 for planning purposes.” P[0072], “Planner 464 is configured to generate a number of candidate trajectories for accomplishing a goal to reaching a destination via a number of paths or routes that are available. Trajectory evaluator 465 is configured to evaluate candidate trajectories and identify which subsets of candidate trajectories are associated with higher degrees of confidence levels of providing collision-free paths to the destination.” P[0073], and “static and dynamic object map data 667 may be transmitted with other data, such as semantic classification information and predicted object behavior. Planner process 664 is configured to generate trajectories data 665, which describes a number of trajectories generated by planner 664.” P[0077].
The generation of trajectories of Levinson et al would be included as part of the automatic driving control of Iguchi et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the three-dimensional data encoding and decoding systems and methods of the Iguchi et al with the control of a generation of trajectories of Levinson et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce collisions, optimize user experience (user comfort), and provide collision-free trajectories that comply with traffic regulations and laws (Levinson et al P[0073]).
Regarding claim 3 Iguchi et al teach the claimed spatial information includes one of items of information about a movement direction limit or a time limit, “the three-dimensional data encoding device divides slices into tiles so that the processing amount or processing time in the decoding device is within a certain range (equal to or less than a predetermined value). Accordingly, the processing amount per tile in the decoding device becomes constant” P[0439], the time being constant equates to the claimed time limit.
Regarding claim 4 Iguchi et al do not teach the claimed display unit displaying the route information, but do teach a presenter 4612 that displays information P[0137]. Any information would be displayed on the presenter. Levinson et al teach, “user interface 1010 displays a representation 1014 of a corresponding autonomous vehicle 1030 transiting along a path 1012, which has been predicted by a number of trajectories generated by a planner” P[0085]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the three-dimensional data encoding and decoding systems and methods of the Iguchi et al with the display of the vehicle transitioning along a path of Levinson et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce collisions, optimize user experience (user comfort), and provide collision-free trajectories that comply with traffic regulations and laws (Levinson et al P[0073]).
Regarding claim 5 Iguchi et al do not teach the claimed user interface for inputting a departure point and an arrival point of the mobile object, but these are common and well known features of a navigation system. Levinson et al teach, “Transportation controller 3242 is configured to receive, schedule, select, or perform operations related to autonomous vehicles and/or autonomous vehicle fleets for which a user 3202 may arrange transportation from the user's location to a destination. For example, user 3202 may open up an application to request vehicle 3230. The application may display a map and user 3202 may drop a pin to indicate their destination within, for example, a geo-fenced region. Alternatively, the application may display a list of nearby pre-specified pick-up locations, or provide the user with a text entry field in which to type a destination either by address or by name.” P[0123]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the three-dimensional data encoding and decoding systems and methods of the Iguchi et al with the user input of current location and destination of Levinson et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce collisions, optimize user experience (user comfort), and provide collision-free trajectories that comply with traffic regulations and laws (Levinson et al P[0073]).
Regarding claim 6 Iguchi et al teach the claimed mobile object generates a 3D map on the basis of the spatial information, “information generator 4651 generates map information on a plurality of two-dimensional images by projecting a three-dimensional structure onto a two-dimensional image” P[0195], and “Geometry information generator 4664 generates geometry information from the geometry image and the map information. Attribute information generator 4665 generates attribute information from the attribute image and the map information.” P[0206].
Regarding claim 7 Iguchi et al do not explicitly teach the claimed update the spatial information based on information from an external sensor in accordance with movement of the mobile object, but do teach “For example, encoded data divided into tiles may be managed by a server connected to an antenna or a sensor for an area assigned to the tiles. The server may manage the encoded data of the area and tile information of a neighboring area. Pieces of encoded data of tiles may be managed in a centralized server (a cloud) that manages servers each corresponding to a different one of the tiles.” P[0490], any changes in the data would be received by the server from the vehicle, managed and then sent back to the vehicle and other vehicles with any information that has changed (Figure 58).
Levinson et al teach, “Map updater 406 is configured to receive map data (e.g., from local map generator 440, sensors 460, or any other component of autonomous vehicle controller 447), and is further configured to detect deviations, for example, of map data in map data repository 405a from a locally-generated map.” P[0074], “For example, consider that sensor data from a fleet of autonomous vehicles is applied to reference data updater 1438 via autonomous (“AV”) fleet data 1470, whereby reference data updater 1438 is configured to generate updated map and route data 1439. In some implementations, updated map and route data 1439 may be preliminarily released as an update to data in map data repositories 1420 and 1422, or as an update to data in route data repository 1424.” P[0097], “Simulator evaluator 2858 may evaluate the effects of updated reference data 2827, including updated map tiles and route data, which may be added to guide the responses of simulated autonomous vehicle 2830. Simulator evaluator 2858 may also evaluate the responses of simulator AV controller 2847 when policy data 2829 is updated, deleted, or added.” P[0119], and “mapping engine 3654 may be configured to detect an object (or the absence of the object) associated with a portion of map data, as well as changes in the object (e.g., changes in color, size, etc.), and may be further configured to incorporate changes to an object into map data to adaptively form (e.g., automatically) an updated portion of the map data. Therefore, an updated portion of map data may be stored in map repository 3605a so as to enhance, among other things, the accuracy of localization functions for autonomous vehicle 3630 (as well as other autonomous vehicle controller functions, including planning and the like).” P[0146]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the three-dimensional data encoding and decoding systems and methods of the Iguchi et al with the map updating based on the sensor information provided to the server of Levinson et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce collisions, optimize user experience (user comfort), and provide collision-free trajectories that comply with traffic regulations and laws (Levinson et al P[0073]).
Regarding claim 10 Iguchi et al teach the claimed share spatial information of space adjacent to each other on the basis of the spatial information, “encoded data divided into tiles may be managed by a server connected to an antenna or a sensor for an area assigned to the tiles. The server may manage the encoded data of the area and tile information of a neighboring area. Pieces of encoded data of tiles may be managed in a centralized server (a cloud) that manages servers each corresponding to a different one of the tiles.” P[0490].
Regarding claim 11 Iguchi et al teach the claimed unique identifier is used to designate a position in space when the spatial information is acquired from an information source in which the spatial information is stored at the time of formatting of the spatial information in association with the unique identifier, “When the three-dimensional data encoding device encodes attribute information, the three-dimensional data encoding device generates, as additional information, dependency relationship information indicating based on which composition information (geometry information, additional information, or another attribute information) encoding has been performed.” P[0498], the geometry information equates to the claimed position in space, and “the obtained encoded data is stored in a server” P[0486].
Regarding claim 12 Iguchi et al teach the claimed spatial information is acquired from two or more information sources, the server is in communication with two vehicles providing information about tiles A and B (Figure 58).
Regarding claim 13 Iguchi et al teach the claimed information source from with the spatial information is acquired is decided according to an information update frequency in the information source, “when tile additional information changes for each frame, the tile additional information may be stored in a parameter set for each frame (GPS or APS etc.)” P[0537].
Regarding claim 14 Iguchi et al teach the claimed information source from with the spatial information is acquired is decided based on a position of the 3D space, “divider 5011 divides three-dimensional point cloud data into one or more tiles in a two-dimensional shape obtained by seeing the three-dimensional point cloud data from top, based on position information such as map information” P[0468], “A user obtains the data of desired tiles from the server when necessary. Alternatively, the server (the three-dimensional data encoding device) may perform tile division and encoding so that tiles include data desired by the user, in response to an instruction from the user.” P[0486], “the server may determine a tile shape and size based on a pre-estimated vehicular speed (e.g., a legal speed on a road, a vehicular speed estimated from the width or shape of a road, or a statistical vehicular speed), and perform tile division” P[0487], and “The server may manage the encoded data of the area and tile information of a neighboring area. Pieces of encoded data of tiles may be managed in a centralized server (a cloud) that manages servers each corresponding to a different one of the tiles. Alternatively, instead of providing the servers each corresponding to the different one of the tiles, antennas or sensors may be directly connected to the centralized server.” P[0490].
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi et al Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0168402 A1 and Levinson et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0248963 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakai Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0397191 A1.
Regarding claim 8 Iguchi et al and Levinson et al do not teach the claimed generating a cost map based on the spatial information. Nakai teaches, a process for generating a cost map (Figure 5), “The cost map calculation unit 136 calculates a cost map used to calculate an action plan (movement plan) on the basis of data or signals from each unit of the moving body control system 100 such as the detection unit 131 and the like.” P[0069], and “the cost map corresponds to plan information regarding the movement plan of the moving body 10” P[0073]. The cost map of Nakai would be combined with Iguchi et al and Levinson et al as part of the routing determination for multiple trajectories of Levinson et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the three-dimensional data encoding and decoding systems and methods of the Iguchi et al and the control of a generation of trajectories of Levinson et al with the cost map of Nakai in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce collisions, optimize user experience (user comfort), and reduce costs of travel and increase safety (Nakai P[0192]).
Regarding claim 9 Iguchi et al and Levinson et al do not teach the claimed mobile object performs movement control based on the cost map. Nakai teaches, “the cost map corresponds to plan information regarding the movement plan of the moving body 10” P[0073]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the three-dimensional data encoding and decoding systems and methods of the Iguchi et al and the control of a generation of trajectories of Levinson et al with the cost map of Nakai in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce collisions, optimize user experience (user comfort), and reduce costs of travel and increase safety (Nakai P[0192]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 thru 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 thru 4, 6, 8 thru 12 and 14 thru 16 of copending Application No. 18/758443 (same assignee) in view of Terada Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0180987. The current pending claims lack applying the system and method to a claimed plurality of vehicles of the copending claims. Applying a system and method to multiple vehicles is common and well known in the art, and would require additional processing of information and communication of that information. Terada teaches, “The travel trajectory model is track data generated by statistically integrating the travel trajectories of a plurality of vehicles.” P[0090], “the server processor 31 may be configured to generate a traveling trajectory model obtained by averaging the traveling trajectories of a plurality of vehicles, and then correct the traveling trajectory model by using a reference mark” P[0158], “The provisionally distributed map is verified, for example, whether it can be used for automatic control in a plurality of vehicles.” P[0206], and “The server 3 finally determines whether there is a difficulty with the temporary map data based on the verification results of a plurality of vehicles, and when it is determined that there is no difficulty, the server 3 adopts the temporary map data as the official map.” P[0206]. The control of a plurality of vehicles would be applied to the movement control operations of the pending claims. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control systems and methods of the pending application with the control of a plurality of vehicles of Terada in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, efficiently acquire map information (Terada P[0031]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Related Art
The examiner points to Rasmusson Jr. et al PGPub 2018/0137373 A1 as related art but not relied upon for any rejection. Rasmusson Jr. et al is directed to classifying objects along a route that the vehicle navigates (P[0030] and Figure 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662