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 . This office action is in response to an Amendment filed on 7/15/2026. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed on 7/15/2026 are under consideration. Claims 1, 7-9, and 11 are amended. Claim Rejection regarding 35 USC § 112 have been removed upon correction
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) 1-3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. (JP2020107059A) in view of Chao et al. (CN 103164953 B) and in further view of Na (CN 104464274 A)
Regarding Claim 1 Ogata teaches A travel assistance device configured to detect a surrounding environment of a first vehicle by an onboard sensor of the first vehicle (Pg. 1 – “object is detected only by an image sensor that detects an object around the vehicle” ) and assist the autonomously traveling first vehicle in traveling, (Pg. 1 – “The present disclosure has been devised in view of the above-mentioned conventional situation, and driving that supports determination of adaptive driving operation during driving by an autonomous vehicle in accordance with operation reliability of a camera mounted on the autonomous vehicle”) based on the detected surrounding environment, the travel assistance device comprising at least one computer configured to perform processing comprising: acquiring position information about a current position of the first vehicle; (Pg. 4 – “A vehicle position measuring unit 157, which is an example of a positioning unit, detects position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10…The determination target determination unit 156, which is an example of the target determination unit, refers to the road map data based on the position information of the self-driving vehicle 10, identifies the target tg shown in the image captured by the camera 11, and determines the determination target. To be the target object” (equates to based on the detected surrounding environment, the travel assistance device comprising at least one computer configured to perform processing comprising: acquiring position information about a current position of the first vehicle; as the quote shows the position determining of the first vehicle by the unit 157 and works with the determination unit 156 gathering sensor data of surrounding objects. ) ) acquiring position information about a destination of the first vehicle; (Pg.5 – “Specifically, the maximum speed determination unit 14 obtains from the position of the own vehicle determined by the determination target determination unit 156 and the position of the target tg registered in the road map data up to the target tg. Get a distance of 100m” (equates to acquiring position information about a destination of the first vehicle as the quote shows the target of a location gathered in the road map data wherein the vehicle is determined to decelerate based on being a certain distance away )) setting allowable travel speed, the allowable travel speed being a speed at which the first vehicle can be caused to travel under autonomous driving control, (Pg. 5 – “The maximum speed determination unit 14 refers to the maximum speed determination table Tb2, and determines the maximum speed based on the distance to the object and the operation reliability of the camera 11.” & See Also Pg. 1 – “determination unit that determines a driving operation performed by the self-driving vehicle based on the evaluated operation reliability of the camera, and an instruction to execute automatic driving according to the determined driving operation. Is provided to a vehicle control unit for executing the operation control of the autonomous driving vehicle, and a driving operation determination device” & See Also Pg. 7 – “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” (equates to setting allowable travel speed, the allowable travel speed being a speed at which the first vehicle can be caused to travel under autonomous driving control, as the first quote shows the speed being determined wherein the second quote shows the determination unit being used in sync with autonomous vehicle operations being performed. )) to a speed lower than a legal speed or a set speed, (Pg. 3 – “Or a speed control instruction value vd1 such as a legal speed” ) the set speed being a speed set by a user, according to a recognition state of the onboard sensor or a vehicle state of the first vehicle; (Pg. 5 – “In the maximum speed determination table Tb2, the operation reliability of the camera 11 and the maximum speed corresponding to the distance to the object tg are registered. The maximum speed registered in the maximum speed determination table Tb2 may be set to a different value depending on weather conditions such as rainfall, snowfall, and fog.” (equates to the set speed being a speed set by a user, according to a recognition state of the onboard sensor or a vehicle state of the first vehicle; as the quote shows the camera detecting the environment and speed being set based on weather conditions as detected by the onboard sensor.)) including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as a target travel route of the first vehicle, (Pg. 7 - “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” (equates to including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as a target travel route of the first vehicle as the quote shows the road map data being used to determine the speed limit in which the road would have a prescribed speed limit within the map database.)) traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit (Pg. 7 - “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” (equates to traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit as the quote shows the vehicle travelling at a speed lower than the speed limit based on the command value)) based on the current position, the destination, and the allowable travel speed, (Pg. 7 - “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” & See Also Pg. 7 – “refers to the reliability determination table Tb1A based on the ratio of the high frequency components of the determination area included in the captured image and the distance to the target tg determined by the determination target determination unit 156” (equates to based on the current position, the destination, and the allowable travel speed as the first quote shows the current position wherein the data is collected to determine the legal speed in accordance with the current position and the second quote showing the inclusion of the target or destination in accordance with the method disclosed.)) wherein when the at least one computer cannot generate the second target travel route enabling the first vehicle to reach the destination from the current position, (Pg. 9 – “However, when it rains, infrared light may be irregularly reflected by water droplets or the like and cannot be received. Further, since the camera 11 identifies the object based on the shape and size of the object shown in the captured image and measures the distance thereof, there is no timing to project like the millimeter wave or infrared light. , The distance cannot be measured with high accuracy. However, it is always possible to identify the object and measure the distance. As described above, the sensor (including the camera) having the highest operation reliability changes depending on the weather, the traveling state, and the like.” & See Also Pg. 4 – “The determination target object determination unit 156 notifies the determination area extraction unit 152 of information on the position and size of the target image to be determined in the screen of the captured image. The determination target determination unit 156 also calculates distance information to the target determination target and notifies the maximum speed determination unit 14 of the calculated distance information” (equates to wherein when the at least one computer cannot generate the second target travel route enabling the first vehicle to reach the destination from the current position, as the first quote shows a lack of useful data generated by a sensor and the second showing the target object being generated but in this case the data isn’t used to generated a target object and the route, first or second, isn’t generated anywhere else in the art. )) a in which the first vehicle can arrive by traveling on a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed. (Pg. 7 - “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” & See Also Pg. 7 – “refers to the reliability determination table Tb1A based on the ratio of the high frequency components of the determination area included in the captured image and the distance to the target tg determined by the determination target determination unit 156” (equates to a in which the first vehicle can arrive by traveling on a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as the first quote shows the road map data and thus the road the vehicle is traveling onto have its speed controlled to be that of a legal speed.))
Yet Ogata fails to teach generating a first target travel route from the current position to the destination; and generating a second target travel route from the current position to the destination as an alternative route of the first target travel route, generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route; the second target travel route; the at least one computer sets a vehicle connection point at which a passenger of the first vehicle transfers to another second vehicle within an area.
Chao teaches generating a first target travel route from the current position to the destination; (Pg. 3 – “generate first route of described reference position to described first object address, wherein said first object address is current target address”) and generating a second target travel route from the current position to the destination as an alternative route of the first target travel route, the second target travel route (Pg. 1 – “Thus achieve the Route Generation generate rule route of multiple destination address according to the selection of user” & See Also Pg. 2 – “generate second route of described first object address to described second destination address, and by described second destination address as described current target address” (equates to and generating a second target travel route from the current position to the destination as an alternative route of the first target travel route, the second target travel route as the first quote shows a plurality of route generated from a current position to a same destination and the second quote showing specifically a second route generated to a same destination location.))
Yet both fail to teach generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route; the at least one computer sets a vehicle connection point at which a passenger of the first vehicle transfers to another second vehicle within an are
Na teaches the at least one computer sets a vehicle connection point at which a passenger of the first vehicle transfers to another second vehicle within an area (Pg. 1 – “The invention provides a car-sharing taxi taking method and a server. The method includes the step that order modification information sent by a first carsharing passenger on a first vehicle is received, wherein the order modification information includes current car taking requirement information of the first passenger; a second vehicle meeting the requirement of current car taking requirement information is selected as a transfer vehicle in the preset range of the current position of the first vehicle, and the overlap point of the running path of the first vehicle and the running path of the second vehicle is a transfer position” (equates to one computer sets a vehicle connection point at which a passenger of the first vehicle transfers to another second vehicle within an area as the quote shows the transfer point being selected in which the passengers can transfer from one vehicle to the next ) )
Yet all fail to teach generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route
Snowden teaches generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route (Pg. 34 – [0070] – “FIG. 2A shows a first geographic area at a first zoom level 200, the first zoom level comprising a plurality of vector tiles 202. In accordance with step 106 above, the vector features that provide a route across the vector tiles and are candidates for the lowest cost paths are identified as line features 204, 206 and 208. For example, the line features 204, 206 and 208 may be a walking network of sidewalks, paths and the like. In this example, line feature 204 is shown as a thicker line to indicate a path that is significantly lower cost (i.e. shorter/faster), for example, because it has a low change in elevation or has a higher speed limit.” (equates to generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route as the quote shows two paths being generated wherein one of the target travel paths generated allow for a shorter target path ) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed to include generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route as this allows for multiple paths to be generated and a shorter path on the second attempt to be generated for the vehicle to travel upon allowing the vehicle to travel safely and within the speed limit
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route as this allows for a plurality of paths to be generated and a shortest distance path to be chosen based on the plurality.
Regarding Claim 2 Ogata-Chao-Na-Snowden teaches (Ogata discloses the following limitations:) The travel assistance device according to claim 1, travel route in such a way that a ratio of distance traveled by the first vehicle on a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed is higher (Pg. 3 – “The instruction speed determination unit 17 as an example of the determination unit determines the speed of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 as the maximum speed determined by the maximum speed determination unit 14 or the speed limit obtained from the road map data registered in the map database MP1. Or a speed control instruction value vd1 such as a legal speed. The speed control instruction may be registered in the memory of the vehicle control ECU 50 in association with the position information of the target object” & See Also Pg. 3 – “Alternatively, information such as the distance to the target tg (see FIG. 3) shown in the captured image is acquired. Further, the operation determination unit 15 determines the maximum speed (so-called maximum speed) of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 during traveling” (equates to in such a way that a ratio of distance traveled by the first vehicle on a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed is higher as the quote shows the distance from the object being used to determine a maximum speed and the ratio being higher when the vehicle is further away than would be allowed if closer to the target object.)) when the allowable travel speed is set to a speed lower than the set speed than when the allowable travel speed is not set to a speed lower than the set speed. (Pg. 3 – “instruction for driving the accelerator pedal actuator 21 based on the current speed so that the maximum speed or the speed limit determined by the instruction speed determination unit 17 is reached. The instruction information (an example of the execution instruction) or the instruction information of the speed instruction for driving the brake pedal actuator 22 (an example of the execution instruction) is output to the vehicle control unit 20.” & See Also Pg. 3 – “The instruction speed determination unit 17 as an example of the determination unit determines the speed of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 as the maximum speed determined by the maximum speed determination unit 14 or the speed limit obtained from the road map data registered in the map database MP1. Or a speed control instruction value vd1 such as a legal speed. The speed control instruction may be registered in the memory of the vehicle control ECU 50 in association with the position information of the target object” (equates to when the allowable travel speed is set to a speed lower than the set speed than when the allowable travel speed is not set to a speed lower than the set speed as the quotes show a speed being set in accordance with the road map data and thus the vehicle will travel at a speed less than an allowable speed while going through a speed limit zone less than allowable speed. ))
Yet Ogata -Na fail to teach wherein the at least one computer generates the second target
Chao teaches wherein the at least one computer generates the second target travel route Pg. 1 – “Thus achieve the Route Generation generate rule route of multiple destination address according to the selection of user” & See Also Pg. 2 – “generate second route of described first object address to described second destination address, and by described second destination address as described current target address”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Ogata to include wherein the at least one computer generates the second target travel route as this allows for specific paths to be generated as alternate routes ensuring the driver has more understanding of the area in which the vehicle is drivable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the at least one computer generates the alternative second target travel route as this allows for a potentially quicker route to be generated as more than one ends up being generated.
Regarding Claim 3 Ogata-Chao-Na- Snowden teaches (Ogata discloses the following limitations:)The travel assistance device according to claim 1, in such a way that the first vehicle travels only on a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed from the current position and reaches the destination. (Pg. 7 - “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” (equates to in such a way that the first vehicle travels only on a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed from the current position and reaches the destination as the quote shows the vehicle speed determination unit setting an allowable speed to be travelled by the vehicle to be less than or equal to a legal speed over the road.))
Yet Ogata fails to teach wherein the at least one computer generates the alternative second target travel route
Chao teaches wherein the at least one computer generates the alternative second target travel route (Pg. 1 – “Thus achieve the Route Generation generate rule route of multiple destination address according to the selection of user” & See Also Pg. 2 – “generate second route of described first object address to described second destination address, and by described second destination address as described current target address”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the device disclosed but Ogata-Na to include wherein the at least one computer generates the alternative second target travel route as this allows for a plurality of travel paths to be generated in response to a destination be determined and thus allows for a variety of options to reach the desired destination to be considered.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the at least one computer generates the alternative second target travel route as this allows for a potentially quicker route to be generated as more than one ends up being generated.
Regarding Claim 4 Ogata-Chao-Na-Snowden teaches (Ogata discloses the following limitation:) The travel assistance device according to claim 1, including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed (Pg. 5 – “The maximum speed determination unit 14 refers to the maximum speed determination table Tb2, and determines the maximum speed based on the distance to the object and the operation reliability of the camera 11.” & See Also Pg. 1 – “determination unit that determines a driving operation performed by the self-driving vehicle based on the evaluated operation reliability of the camera, and an instruction to execute automatic driving according to the determined driving operation. Is provided to a vehicle control unit for executing the operation control of the autonomous driving vehicle, and a driving operation determination device” & See Also Pg. 7 – “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” (equates to including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as the road map data of the cited art includes legal speed limit in which the vehicle will travel at.))
Yet Ogata fails to teach wherein the at least one computer generates the alternative second target travel route; and having a highest speed limit.
Chao teaches wherein the at least one computer generates the alternative second target travel route (Pg. 1 – “Thus achieve the Route Generation generate rule route of multiple destination address according to the selection of user” & See Also Pg. 2 – “generate second route of described first object address to described second destination address, and by described second destination address as described current target address”)
Yet all fail to teach and having a highest speed limit.
Snowden teaches and having a highest speed limit. (Pg. 30 – [0009] – “As a result, the connectivity between vector tiles in the z direction may also be taken into consideration when determining the cheapest routes. The geometry and attributes of these vector features are then processed to identify whether those features can provide routes across vector tiles, and which of those routes are the cheapest. For example, two roads may extend between two edges of a vector tile as possible routes, but the road with the highest speed limit may be generalised to a line vector as this road provides the cheapest route between” (equates to and having a highest speed limit. As the quote shows the cheapest route being selected wherein that determination is made via the road with the highest speed limit) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Ogata-Chao-Na to include and having the highest speed limit as this allows for a fasted route to be selected while still travelling within a safe and legal speed.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include and having a highest speed limit as this allows for a specific route to be chosen based on data gathered from road data ensuring a fastest route of travel is selected.
Regarding Claim 7 Ogata-Chao-Na- Snowden teaches The travel assistance device according to claim 1, an autonomous driving vehicle
Yet Ogata- Chao fails to teach wherein the at least one computer dispatches the second vehicle.
Na teaches wherein the at least one computer dispatches the second vehicle (Pg. 1 – “The invention provides a car-sharing taxi taking method and a server. The method includes the step that order modification information sent by a first carsharing passenger on a first vehicle is received, wherein the order modification information includes current car taking requirement information of the first passenger; a second vehicle meeting the requirement of current car taking requirement information is selected as a transfer vehicle in the preset range of the current position of the first vehicle, and the overlap point of the running path of the first vehicle and the running path of the second vehicle is a transfer position”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the device disclosed by Ogata-Chao to include wherein the at least one computer dispatches the second vehicle as this allows for a multi vehicle system to be actualized in which a separate vehicle may be summoned for the passenger’s needs.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the at least one computer dispatches the second vehicle as this allows for a fleet of vehicle to be included for the passenger to take allowing for more than one vehicle to get the passenger to the destination.
Regarding Claim 11 Ogata teaches A travel assistance method (Pg. 1 – “Driving operation determination device, vehicle, and driving operation determination method. The present disclosure relates to a driving operation determination device, a vehicle, and a driving operation determination method for determining a driving operation of an automatic driving vehicle equipped with a camera”) for detecting a surrounding environment of a first vehicle by an onboard sensor of the first vehicle and assisting the autonomously traveling first vehicle in traveling, (Pg. 1 – “object is detected only by an image sensor that detects an object around the vehicle”) based on the detected surrounding environment, the travel assistance method causing at least one computer to perform processing comprising: acquiring position information about a current position of the first vehicle; (Pg. 4 – “A vehicle position measuring unit 157, which is an example of a positioning unit, detects position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10…The determination target determination unit 156, which is an example of the target determination unit, refers to the road map data based on the position information of the self-driving vehicle 10, identifies the target tg shown in the image captured by the camera 11, and determines the determination target. To be the target object” (equates to based on the detected surrounding environment, the travel assistance method causing at least one computer to perform processing comprising: acquiring position information about a current position of the first vehicle; as the quote shows the position determining of the first vehicle by the unit 157 and works with the determination unit 156 gathering sensor data of surrounding objects. ) ) acquiring position information about a destination of the first vehicle; (Pg.5 – “Specifically, the maximum speed determination unit 14 obtains from the position of the own vehicle determined by the determination target determination unit 156 and the position of the target tg registered in the road map data up to the target tg. Get a distance of 100m” (equates to acquiring position information about a destination of the first vehicle as the quote shows the target of a location gathered in the road map data wherein the vehicle is determined to decelerate based on being a certain distance away )) setting allowable travel speed, the allowable travel speed being a speed at which the first vehicle can be caused to travel under autonomous driving control, (Pg. 5 – “The maximum speed determination unit 14 refers to the maximum speed determination table Tb2, and determines the maximum speed based on the distance to the object and the operation reliability of the camera 11.” & See Also Pg. 1 – “determination unit that determines a driving operation performed by the self-driving vehicle based on the evaluated operation reliability of the camera, and an instruction to execute automatic driving according to the determined driving operation. Is provided to a vehicle control unit for executing the operation control of the autonomous driving vehicle, and a driving operation determination device” & See Also Pg. 7 – “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” (equates to setting allowable travel speed, the allowable travel speed being a speed at which the first vehicle can be caused to travel under autonomous driving control, as the first quote shows the speed being determined wherein the second quote shows the determination unit being used in sync with autonomous vehicle operations being performed. )) to a speed lower than a legal speed or a set speed, ((Pg. 3 – “Or a speed control instruction value vd1 such as a legal speed” )) the set speed being a speed set by a user, according to a recognition state of the onboard sensor or a vehicle state of the first vehicle; (Pg. 5 – “In the maximum speed determination table Tb2, the operation reliability of the camera 11 and the maximum speed corresponding to the distance to the object tg are registered. The maximum speed registered in the maximum speed determination table Tb2 may be set to a different value depending on weather conditions such as rainfall, snowfall, and fog.” (equates to the set speed being a speed set by a user, according to a recognition state of the onboard sensor or a vehicle state of the first vehicle; as the quote shows the camera detecting the environment and speed being set based on weather conditions as detected by the onboard sensor.)) including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as a target travel route of the first vehicle, (Pg. 7 - “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” (equates to including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as a target travel route of the first vehicle as the quote shows the road map data being used to determine the speed limit in which the road would have a prescribed speed limit within the map database.)) traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit (Pg. 7 - “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” (equates to traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit as the quote shows the vehicle travelling at a speed lower than the speed limit based on the command value)) based on the current position, the destination, and the allowable travel speed_,_ (Pg. 7 - “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” & See Also Pg. 7 – “refers to the reliability determination table Tb1A based on the ratio of the high frequency components of the determination area included in the captured image and the distance to the target tg determined by the determination target determination unit 156” (equates to based on the current position, the destination, and the allowable travel speed as the first quote shows the current position wherein the data is collected to determine the legal speed in accordance with the current position and the second quote showing the inclusion of the target or destination in accordance with the method disclosed.)) wherein when the at least one computer cannot generate the second target travel route enabling the first vehicle to reach the destination from the current position, (Pg. 9 – “However, when it rains, infrared light may be irregularly reflected by water droplets or the like and cannot be received. Further, since the camera 11 identifies the object based on the shape and size of the object shown in the captured image and measures the distance thereof, there is no timing to project like the millimeter wave or infrared light. , The distance cannot be measured with high accuracy. However, it is always possible to identify the object and measure the distance. As described above, the sensor (including the camera) having the highest operation reliability changes depending on the weather, the traveling state, and the like.” & See Also Pg. 4 – “The determination target object determination unit 156 notifies the determination area extraction unit 152 of information on the position and size of the target image to be determined in the screen of the captured image. The determination target determination unit 156 also calculates distance information to the target determination target and notifies the maximum speed determination unit 14 of the calculated distance information” (equates to wherein when the at least one computer cannot generate the second target travel route enabling the first vehicle to reach the destination from the current position, as the first quote shows a lack of useful data generated by a sensor and the second showing the target object being generated but in this case the data isn’t used to generated a target object and the route, first or second, isn’t generated anywhere else in the art. )) in which the first vehicle can arrive by traveling on a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed. (Pg. 7 - “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” & See Also Pg. 7 – “refers to the reliability determination table Tb1A based on the ratio of the high frequency components of the determination area included in the captured image and the distance to the target tg determined by the determination target determination unit 156” (equates to a in which the first vehicle can arrive by traveling on a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as the first quote shows the road map data and thus the road the vehicle is traveling onto have its speed controlled to be that of a legal speed.))
Yet Ogata fails to teach generating a first target travel route from the current position to the destination; and generating a second target travel route from the current position to the destination as an alternative route of the first target travel route, the second target travel route; generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route; the at least one computer sets a vehicle connection point at which a passenger of the first vehicle transfers to another second vehicle within an area.
Chao teaches generating a first target travel route from the current position to the destination; (Pg. 3 – “generate first route of described reference position to described first object address, wherein said first object address is current target address”) and generating a second target travel route from the current position to the destination as an alternative route of the first target travel route, the second target travel route (Pg. 1 – “Thus achieve the Route Generation generate rule route of multiple destination address according to the selection of user” & See Also Pg. 2 – “generate second route of described first object address to described second destination address, and by described second destination address as described current target address” (equates to and generating a second target travel route from the current position to the destination as an alternative route of the first target travel route, the second target travel route as the first quote shows a plurality of route generated from a current position to a same destination and the second quote showing specifically a second route generated to a same destination location.))
Yet both fail to teach generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route; the at least one computer sets a vehicle connection point at which a passenger of the first vehicle transfers to another second vehicle within an are
Na teaches the at least one computer sets a vehicle connection point at which a passenger of the first vehicle transfers to another second vehicle within an area (Pg. 1 – “The invention provides a car-sharing taxi taking method and a server. The method includes the step that order modification information sent by a first carsharing passenger on a first vehicle is received, wherein the order modification information includes current car taking requirement information of the first passenger; a second vehicle meeting the requirement of current car taking requirement information is selected as a transfer vehicle in the preset range of the current position of the first vehicle, and the overlap point of the running path of the first vehicle and the running path of the second vehicle is a transfer position” (equates to one computer sets a vehicle connection point at which a passenger of the first vehicle transfers to another second vehicle within an area as the quote shows the transfer point being selected in which the passengers can transfer from one vehicle to the next ) )
. Yet all fail to teach generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route
Snowden teaches generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route (Pg. 34 – [0070] – “FIG. 2A shows a first geographic area at a first zoom level 200, the first zoom level comprising a plurality of vector tiles 202. In accordance with step 106 above, the vector features that provide a route across the vector tiles and are candidates for the lowest cost paths are identified as line features 204, 206 and 208. For example, the line features 204, 206 and 208 may be a walking network of sidewalks, paths and the like. In this example, line feature 204 is shown as a thicker line to indicate a path that is significantly lower cost (i.e. shorter/faster), for example, because it has a low change in elevation or has a higher speed limit.” (equates to generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route as the quote shows two paths being generated wherein one of the target travel paths generated allow for a shorter target path ) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed to include generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route as this allows for multiple paths to be generated and a shorter path on the second attempt to be generated for the vehicle to travel upon allowing the vehicle to travel safely and within the speed limit
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route as this allows for a plurality of paths to be generated and a shortest distance path to be chosen based on the plurality.
Claim 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata-Chao-Na- Snowden and in view of YOSHINARI (JP2009281749A)
Regarding Claim 5 Ogata-Chao-Na- Snowden teaches The travel assistance device according to claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet all fail to teach wherein the at least one computer acquires information about margin time, the margin time being delay time of an arrival time at the destination tolerated by a passenger of the first vehicle, and generates a candidate of the alternative route within a range of the margin time.
YOSHINARI teaches wherein the at least one computer acquires information about margin time, the margin time being delay time of an arrival time at the destination tolerated by a passenger of the first vehicle, (Pg. 7 – [0051] – “ when the driver sets the destination arrival allowable time in advance as described above or can arrive within the current estimated arrival time, the delay is less than 30 minutes or more than 30 minutes from the estimated arrival time” ) and generates a candidate of the alternative route within a range of the margin time. (Pg. 7 – [0049] – “That is, in the example of FIG. 3 (c), the remaining distance to the destination is 28km on the current guidance route, the estimated arrival time is 15:50, and there is no charge because the highway is not used when driving. On the other hand, in the new guidance route using proximity interchange, it is 26km to the destination, the estimated arrival time is 15:55, and it costs 700 yen to use the expressway. Compared easily. On such a screen, the user can input “Yes” and “No” as to whether or not to use a new guidance route (” (equates to and generates a candidate of the alternative route within a range of the margin time as the quote shows the variety of routes being generated each within a different margin time allowing the user to select which route they would take to fit their schedule. ) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Ogata-Chao-Na to include wherein the at least one computer acquires information about margin time, the margin time being delay time of an arrival time at the destination tolerated by a passenger of the first vehicle, and generates a candidate of the alternative route within a range of the margin time as this allows for a timely arrival of a vehicle to be had via multi path generation.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the at least one computer acquires information about margin time, the margin time being delay time of an arrival time at the destination tolerated by a passenger of the first vehicle, and generates a candidate of the alternative route within a range of the margin time as this allows the user to select the path to get to their destination ensuring the travel time meets a variety of their needs ensuring the user isn’t arriving too early or too late to the destination.
Regarding Claim 8 Ogata-Chao-Na- Snowden teaches The travel assistance device according to claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet Ogata-Chao fail to teach wherein the at least one computer acquires information about margin time, the margin time being delay time of an arrival time at the destination tolerated by a passenger of the first vehicle, and selects the second vehicle from among candidates of an autonomous driving vehicle capable of arriving at the destination within a range of the margin time.
Na teaches selects the second vehicle from among candidates of an autonomous driving vehicle capable of arriving at the destination within a range of the margin time. (Pg. 1 – “The method includes the step that order modification information sent by a first carsharing passenger on a first vehicle is received, wherein the order modification information includes current car taking requirement information of the first passenger; a second vehicle meeting the requirement of current car taking requirement information is selected as a transfer vehicle in the preset range of the current position of the first vehicle, and the overlap point of the running path of the first vehicle and the running path of the second vehicle is a transfer position; passenger confirmation information is sent to the first passenger and includes the transfer position and an identification of the second vehicle; vehicle confirmation information is sent to the first vehicle and the second vehicle and includes the transfer position. By means of the car-sharing taxi taking method and the server, requirements of passengers can be met to the largest extent, time of the passengers is saved, and the transfer success rate and user experience are improved.” (equates to selects the second vehicle from among candidates of an autonomous driving vehicle capable of arriving at the destination within a range of the margin time as the quote shows the second vehicle being selected for the passenger to help them save time getting to their destination. ) )
Yet all fail to teach wherein the at least one computer acquires information about margin time, the margin time being delay time of an arrival time at the destination tolerated by a passenger of the first vehicle.
YOSHINARI teaches herein the at least one computer acquires information about margin time, the margin time being delay time of an arrival time at the destination tolerated by a passenger of the first vehicle (Pg. 7 – [0051] – “ when the driver sets the destination arrival allowable time in advance as described above or can arrive within the current estimated arrival time, the delay is less than 30 minutes or more than 30 minutes from the estimated arrival time”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Ogata-Na-Chao to include wherein the at least one computer acquires information about margin time, the margin time being delay time of an arrival time at the destination tolerated by a passenger of the first vehicle as this allows for a specifiable range of time in which the passenger can designate a tolerance region of time in which they are comfortable with arrival.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include herein the at least one computer acquires information about margin time, the margin time being delay time of an arrival time at the destination tolerated by a passenger of the first vehicle as this allows for a specific measure of time in which the user can arrive at the destination being more robust than general time saved as disclosed by Na.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata-Chao-Na- Snowden and in view of Rollinger (US 10,760,460 Bl)
Regarding Claim 9 Ogata-Chao-Na- Snowden teaches (Ogata discloses the following limitations: ) The travel assistance device according to claim 1, the at least one computer causes the first vehicle to stop. (Pg. 2 – “a function of activating a brake to stop the vehicle (own vehicle) immediately before it is about to collide with an obstacle such as another vehicle”)
Yet Ogata-Chao-Na fails to teach wherein when the set allowable travel speed is less than a threshold value.
Rollinger teaches wherein when the set allowable travel speed is less than a threshold value, (Pg. 13 – col 9- “At 404, it is determined if the vehicle is stationary. For example, it may be confirmed if the vehicle speed is O and the vehicle is not moving. Alternatively, it may be determined if the vehicle speed is less than a threshold speed (such as less than 5 mph) and the vehicle is decelerating to a complete stop” ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the device disclosed by _ to include wherein when the set allowable travel speed is less than a threshold value as this allows a speed measurement to be taken to halt a vehicle and thus any speed out of the ordinary allows for stopping of the vehicle and a safe ride for the passengers to be had.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein when the set allowable travel speed is less than a threshold value as this allows for a simple measurement to be taken to automatically stop the vehicle.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata-Chao-Na- Snowden and in view of Hiromitsu (JP2018103858A)
Regarding Claim 10 Ogata-Chao-Na- Snowden teaches The travel assistance device according to claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet all fail to teach wherein the at least one computer sets the allowable travel speed to a lower speed when no passenger is on board the first vehicle than when a passenger is on board the first vehicle.
Hiromitsu teaches wherein the at least one computer sets the allowable travel speed to a lower speed when no passenger is on board the first vehicle than when a passenger is on board the first vehicle. (Pg. 6 – [0041-0042] – “Generating a travel plan with a limit to delay the speed of the vehicle V compared with a case where it is detected that there is a driver is slower than the speed set when the driver is detected to be present Means to generate a travel plan in which the speed is set. For example, when it is detected that there is a driver, the legal speed of the road on which the vehicle V travels may be set as the speed of the vehicle V. In this case, the driving schedule generating unit 15 generates a driving schedule in which a value less than the legal speed is set as the speed of the vehicle V.
Generating a travel plan with both restrictions of limiting both lane change prohibition and limitation of slowing down the speed of the vehicle V compared to the case where it is detected that the driver is present means prohibiting the above lane change And limits for slowing down the speed of the vehicle V as described above.” (equates to wherein the at least one computer sets the allowable travel speed to a lower speed when no passenger is on board the first vehicle than when a passenger is on board the first vehicle. As the quote shows the set speed of the autonomous driving capability to be set lower than if a driver is detected. ) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by __ to include wherein the at least one computer sets the allowable travel speed to a lower speed when no passenger is on board the first vehicle than when a passenger is on board the first vehicle as this allows the passengers to feel safer when travelling within an autonomous vehicle and simultaneously ensures the speed feel fast enough for when the driver is active.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the at least one computer sets the allowable travel speed to a lower speed when no passenger is on board the first vehicle than when a passenger is on board the first vehicle as this allows for a higher level of control to be felt by the passenger in both cases as the passenger feels in control going a comfortable speed when in control and similarly feels as ease when being transported a t a lower speed.
Response to Arguments
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims _ applicant’s amendments to the claim
changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 4-6, “Ogata, Chao, and Na
Claims 1-3, 7, and 11 are rejected as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. (JP 2020/107059) in view of Chao et al. (CN 103164953) and further in view of Na (CN 104464274). This rejection is respectfully traversed as follows.
An object of the present invention is to suppress the deterioration of traffic efficiency caused by the limiting target travel speeds of autonomous vehicles. See specification, para. [0006]. For instance, the controller of a vehicle may limit travel speed to less than or equal to a posted speed limit due to a recognition state of object sensors of the vehicle. When the automated vehicle stop control against an object in front of the vehicle causes the vehicle to decelerate in a comparative-weak braking manner, the vehicle traveling at 60 km/hr is required to travel 140 m to come to a stop, while a vehicle traveling at 40 km/hr is required to travel 70 m to come to a stop. When the detection distance in front of the vehicle at which the object sensors of the vehicle can recognize an object deteriorates from 140 m to 70 m, the controller sets an allowable travel speed, which is a speed at which the vehicle can be caused to travel under autonomous driving control to 40 km/h, thereby limiting the travel speed of the vehicle. As a result, if the vehicle continues to travel along the initial target road at the lower speed, there is a risk that travel of other vehicles around the vehicle is disturbed and travel efficiency is reduced.
Thus, the server device provides the vehicle with an alternative route that includes a road having a speed limit less than or equal to allowable travel speed, and lower than the original route, as a target travel route. Then, the distance that the vehicle travels at a speed lower than the speed limit is reduced so that the speed of the vehicle is less likely to prevent travel of another vehicle around the vehicle. Therefore, due to this capability, it is possible to prevent the vehicle from obstructing traffic flow around the vehicle. See specification, para. [0025]-[0026].
In order to more precisely define the invention to be in line with the description above, independent claims 1 and 11 are amended to recite, "the second target travel route including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as a target travel route of the first vehicle and being generated such that a distance traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit is reduced compared to the first target travel route."
Ogata teaches a target object, such as a road sign or other fixed object, which is used to evaluate the operation reliability of a camera. The position of the target object and the distance to the target object are used to determine the camera's effective recognition distance and the maximum speed at which the autonomous vehicle can safely stop. Additionally, Ogata's speed limit or legal speed disclosure is only for speed control, not route generation. Ogata's command speed determination unit uses a speed control command value, such as a legal speed or speed limit, obtained from map data. However, Ogata uses such information only to determine the upper limit of vehicle speed by comparing it with the maximum speed determined based on camera reliability. Ogata does not disclose selecting roads, generating a travel route, changing a travel route, or determining an area reachable by roads having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed.
Chao's multiple-destination route generation is not alternative route generation. Chao discloses generating route information including multiple target addresses according to a route generation rule selected by a user. The reference is concerned with determining an order for visiting multiple target addresses and generating one route including those addresses. Chao does not disclose generating, as an alternative to an already generated first route, a second route from the same current position to the same destination. Chao's "second route" is merely a next segment in a multi- destination route. In Chao, the "second route" is a route from the first target address to the second target address. It is simply a subsequent route segment after the first target address has been selected. It is not a substitute for, or an alternative to, the first route. Accordingly, Chao does not cure Ogata's failure to disclose generating a second target travel route as an alternative route of a first target travel route.
Na does not cure the deficiencies of Ogata and Chao. Na discloses a car-sharing taxi system in which, when a passenger changes an order after boarding a first vehicle, a server selects a second vehicle and sets a transfer position based on overlapping travel paths of the first and second vehicles. Na does not disclose setting an allowable travel speed based on an onboard sensor recognition state or vehicle state, generating an alternative route based on that allowable travel speed, or setting a transfer point when such an alternative route cannot be generated. Therefore, Na does not cure the above deficiencies of Ogata and Chao.
In view of the remarks above, it is evident that none of Ogata, Chao, or Na, or any combination thereof, teach, at least, "the second target travel route including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as a target travel route of the first vehicle and being generated such that a distance traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit is reduced compared to the first target travel route," as required by amended independent claims 1 and 11. Further, even assuming arguendo that a person of ordinary skill in the art, applying common sense, were to combine Ogata, Chao, and Na in an attempt to achieve the claimed invention, the combination would still fail to render amended independent claims 1 and 11 obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of applicant's own disclosure as a guide.
For at least the reasons above, amended independent claims 1 and 11 are patentable over Ogata, Chao, and Na. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is respectfully requested. By virtue of their dependency, claims 2-3 and 7 are also patentable over Ogata, Chao, and Na. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2-3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is respectfully requested.” As to point A the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that Ogata does not teach “and being generated such that a distance traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit is reduced compared to the first target travel route”. During Patent Examination, pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned amendment is to generate a second trajectory in which the vehicle will still follow the posted speed limit for the trajectory and the trajectory having a shorter distance than the first generated. . _Ogata teaches the vehicle able to provide itself with speed control commands and thus follow any vehicle trajectory within the prescribed legal limit and Snowden teaches multiple paths being generated in which a shorter path in the second trajectory can be generated and utilized (as mapped above in claim 1 & 11). Therefor the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants arguments and assert that Ogata-Snowden teaches “and being generated such that a distance traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit is reduced compared to the first target travel route”.
Ogata teaches : traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit (Pg. 7 - “command speed determination unit 17 corresponds to the position information of the autonomous driving vehicle 10 based on the road map data registered in the map database MP1 held in the memory, such as the speed control command value vd1 (legal speed, speed limit, etc.).” (equates to traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit as the quote shows the vehicle travelling at a speed lower than the speed limit based on the command value))
Snowden teaches generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route (Pg. 34 – [0070] – “FIG. 2A shows a first geographic area at a first zoom level 200, the first zoom level comprising a plurality of vector tiles 202. In accordance with step 106 above, the vector features that provide a route across the vector tiles and are candidates for the lowest cost paths are identified as line features 204, 206 and 208. For example, the line features 204, 206 and 208 may be a walking network of sidewalks, paths and the like. In this example, line feature 204 is shown as a thicker line to indicate a path that is significantly lower cost (i.e. shorter/faster), for example, because it has a low change in elevation or has a higher speed limit.” (equates to generated such that a distance traveled is reduced compared to the first target travel route as the quote shows two paths being generated wherein one of the target travel paths generated allow for a shorter target path ) )
Applicant argues on pages 5-6, “Claim 4 is rejected as being unpatentable over Ogata, Chao, and Na in view of Snowden (US 2021/0325196). This rejection is respectfully traversed as follows.
As explained above, Ogata, Chao, and Na fail to show or suggest each of the limitations of amended independent claim 1. Further, Snowden fails to teach "the second target travel10
route including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as a target travel route of the first vehicle and being generated such that a distance traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit is reduced compared to the first target travel route." As Snowden cannot remedy what Ogata, Chao, and Na lack, the combination of Ogata, Chao, Na, and Snowden cannot teach or suggest every limitation of amended independent claim 1. Further, even assuming arguendo that a person of ordinary skill in the art, applying common sense, were to combine Ogata, Chao, Na, and Snowden in an attempt to achieve the claimed invention, the combination would still fail to render amended independent claim 1 obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide.
For at least the reasons above, amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Ogata, Chao, Na, and Snowden. By virtue of its dependency, claim 4 is also patentable over Ogata, Chao, Na, and Snowden. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is respectfully requested.” - As to point B see point A
Applicant argues on pages 6-7, “Claims 5 and 8 are rejected as being unpatentable over Ogata, Chao, and Na in view of Yoshinari (JP 2009/281749). This rejection is respectfully traversed as follows.
As explained above, Ogata, Chao, and Na fail to show or suggest each of the limitations of amended independent claim 1. Further, Yoshinari fails to teach "the second target travel route including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as a target travel route of the first vehicle and being generated such that a distance traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit is reduced compared to the first target travel route." As Yoshinari cannot remedy what Ogata, Chao, and Na lack, the combination of Ogata, Chao, Na, and Yoshinari cannot teach or suggest every limitation of amended independent claim 1. Further, even assuming arguendo that a person of ordinary skill in the art, applying common sense, were to combine Ogata, Chao, Na, and Yoshinari in the manner suggested by the Examiner, the combination would still fail to render amended independent claim 1 obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide.
For at least the reasons above, amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Ogata, Chao, Na, and Yoshinari. By virtue of their dependency, claims 5 and 8 are also patentable over Ogata, Chao, Na, and Yoshinari. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is respectfully requested. Claim 9 is rejected as being unpatentable over Ogata, Chao, and Na in view of Rollinger (US 10,760,460). This rejection is respectfully traversed as follows.
As explained above, Ogata, Chao, and Na fail to show or suggest each of the limitations of amended independent claim 1. Further, Rollinger fails to teach "the second target travel route including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as a target travel route of the first vehicle and being generated such that a distance traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit is reduced compared to the first target travel route." As Rollinger cannot remedy what Ogata, Chao, and Na lack, the combination of Ogata, Chao, Na, and Rollinger
cannot teach or suggest every limitation of amended independent claim 1. Further, even assuming arguendo that a person of ordinary skill in the art, applying common sense, were to combine Ogata, Chao, Na, and Rollinger in an attempt to achieve the claimed invention, the combination would still fail to render amended independent claim 1 obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide.
For at least the reasons above, amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Ogata, Chao, Na, and Rollinger. By virtue of its dependency, claim 9 is also patentable over Ogata, Chao, Na, and Rollinger. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is respectfully requested.
Ogata, Chao, Na, and Hiromitsu
Claim 10 is rejected as being unpatentable over Ogata, Chao, and Na in view of Hiromitsu (JP 2018103858). This rejection is respectfully traversed as follows.
As explained above, Ogata, Chao, and Na fail to show or suggest each of the limitations of amended independent claim 1. Further, Hiromitsu fails to teach "the second target travel route including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as a target travel route of the first vehicle and being generated such that a distance traveled by the first vehicle at a speed lower than the speed limit is reduced compared to the first target travel route." As Hiromitsu cannot remedy what Ogata, Chao, and Na lack, the combination of Ogata, Chao, Na, and Hiromitsu cannot teach or suggest every limitation of amended independent claim 1. Further, even assuming arguendo that a person of ordinary skill in the art, applying common sense, were to combine
Ogata, Chao, Na, and Hiromitsu in an attempt to achieve the claimed invention, the combination would still fail to render amended independent claim 1 obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide.
For at least the reasons above, amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Ogata, Chao, Na, and Hiromitsu. By virtue of its dependency, claim 10 is also patentable over Ogata, Chao, Na, and Hiromitsu. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is respectfully requested.” – As to point C see point A
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE 102019218411 A1 - The invention relates to a method for stopping a self-propelled vehicle (10), starting with the determination of an approach of the vehicle (10) to an advised stopping point (83). In addition, at least one moving object (70) is detected in the surroundings of the vehicle. At a first point in time t1, a projected trajectory (84) of the vehicle (10) and a projected trajectory (85) of the object (70) are determined
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/R.A.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
9/21/26
Prosecution Insights