DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed 20 December 2024
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 December 2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Step 501 (S501) of Figure 6 is not clear. The examiner recommends that the step should read “isn’t allowed to cross over to opposite lane” or “is not allowed to cross over to opposite lane”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites “presence/absence”. The examiner recommends amending to recite “presence or absence”. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“a route generation unit that generates route information” in claim 1,
“a general vehicle traffic count calculation unit that calculates” in claim 1
“an emergency vehicle travel lane generation unit that generates travel lane information” in claim 1
“an evacuation lane calculation unit that calculates” in claim 2
“a number of evacuable vehicles calculation unit that calculates” in claim 2
“detour route derivation unit that compares” in claim 3
“an opposite lane travel determination unit that determines” in claim 4
“a route distribution unit that distributes” in claim 5
“an emergency vehicle avoidance information notification unit that…notifies” in claim 6, 8
“a route information reception unit that receives” in claim 6, 7, 8
“an evacuation place use determination unit that…determines” in claim 7, 8.
Structural support for these limitations can be found in [0013] [0046] and [0052] of the instant application
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.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are replete with indefiniteness issues. While the examiner has attempted to identify all of them, any newly identified 112(a)/(b) rejections will not be considered a new basis of rejection because the Applicant initial submission has significant errors which cause the claims to be difficult to examine.
Claim 1 recites “the number of general vehicles” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a general vehicle” in line 10-11. Claim 1 previously recited “a vehicle” in line 4. It is not clear if the general vehicle is the same or different than the vehicle previously recited. Similarly claim 1 recites “an emergency vehicle”. It is not clear if the emergency vehicle of claim 1 is the same or different than the vehicle previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “route information” in line 9. Claim 1 previously recited “route information” in lines 2-3. It is not clear if the route information of line 9 is the same or different than the route information in lines 2-3. The examiner recommends reciting “the route information” in line 9 of claim 1. Further, the examiner notes that “route information” is recited in also recited in claim 5, 6, 7, and 8 and these claims are similarly rejected. Claims 5-8 should be amended to recite “the route information” because route information was previously recited.
Claim 1 recites “a travel lane”, “an opposite lane” in line 17. Claim 1, lines 14-15 previously recited “a current travel lane”’ and “an opposite lane”. It is not clear if the travel lane of line 17 and the opposite lane of line 17 are the same or different than that of the travel lane and opposite lane recited in lines 14-15.
Claim 1 recites “ the travel lane” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that “ a current travel lane” is introduced in lines 14-15 and “a travel lane” is introduced in line 17. It is not clear if the travel lane of line 15-16 is the current travel lane or the travel lane as later introduced.
Claim 2 recites “from travel lane information” in line 5. The examiner notes that claim 2 depends from claim 1 which previously recited “travel lane information”. Claim 2 should be amended to recite “from the travel lane information”.
Claim 2 recites “the number of vehicles that can be evacuated to the evacuation lane” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “ the number of passing vehicles” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “ the number of passing vehicles” in line 3. It is not clear if the passing vehicles are the same or different than the evacuable vehicles or how the vehicles are related. It is not clear what is considered a passing vehicle. Are the passing vehicles a subset of the evacuable vehicles?
Claim 3 recites “a vehicle” in line 7 and in line 9. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 which previously recited “a vehicle”. It is not clear if the vehicle of claim 1 is the same or different than that of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “travel lane information”, “a lane on which the emergency vehicle travels”, “a travel lane”, “a current travel lane” and “an opposite lane” and “a middle between the travel lane…”. The examiner notes that claim 4 depends from claim 1 which previously recites “travel lane information”, “a lane on which the emergency vehicle travels”, “a travel lane”, “a current travel lane” and “an opposite lane” and “a middle between the travel lane…”. It is not clear if the recitations in claim 4 are the same elements or different that recited in claim 1. Further, it is not clear if the “a travel lane” and “a current travel lane” are the same lane.
Claim 4 recites “from information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what information is being referred to in the claim as written. The examiner notes that the claim recites many types of information. While the claim recites that the information is generated by the opposite lane travel determination unit, there is not positive recitation of generating information or what information is generated and whether this information is the same or different than the “destination”, “map: “travel lane”, “route” “obstacle” information previously recited in claim 4 and claim 1
Claim 5 recites “a detour route” in line 5. Claim 5 depends from claim 3 which previously recited “a detour route”. It is not clear if the detour route of claim 5 is the same or different than that of claim 3.
Claim 5 recites “ a route distribution unit that distributes route information calculated by the emergency vehicle travel lane generation unit, the number of evacuable vehicles calculation unit, and the detour route derivation unit” As written it appears the claim recites that the evacuable vehicle calculations unit calculates the route information. However, there is no positive recitation of the evacuable vehicle calculations unit calculating a route. Similarly, as written it appears the claim recites that the detour route derivation unit calculates the route information. There is no positive recitation of the detour route derivation unit calculating a route. If the Applicant intends for the “ evacuation lane” of claim 2 and the “detour route” of claim 3 to be route information then this should be expressly claimed.
Claim 6 recites “ an evacuation place”. Claim 6 depends from claim 3 which previously recited “an evaluation place”. It is not clear if the evacuation place of claim 6 is the same or different than that of claim 3. Claim 8 has the same recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 6 recites “a detour route” in line 6. Claim 6 depends from claim 3 which previously recited “a detour route”. It is not clear if the detour route of claim 6 is the same or different than that of claim 3. Claim 8 has the same recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites “determines if it is possible to evacuate from the emergency vehicle”. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation. As understood by the examiner the determination is not whether the vehicle can evacuate the emergency vehicle itself, but rather whether the vehicle can evacuate from the travel lane or the route that the emergency vehicle is traveling upon. Claim 8 has the same recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites “the distributed evacuation place” in line 8 and in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 has the same recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites “an obstacle” in line 11. Claim 7 depends indirectly from claim 3 which previously recited “an obstacle’. It is unclear if the obstacle of claim 7 is the same or different than that recited in claim 3. Claim 8 has the same recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 8 recites “an emergency vehicle”, “a general vehicle” and “a vehicle” in two locations of the claim. The examiner notes that claim 8 depends from claim 1 which previously recites “an emergency vehicle”, “a general vehicle” and “a vehicle”. It is not clear if the recitations in claim 8 are the same elements or different that recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “prioritization”. Claim 3 recites “calculates a detour route for a vehicle with low priority provided upon prioritization when the number of passing vehicles exceeds the number of evacuable vehicles”. However, there is no positive recitation of a prioritization or element that performs the prioritization.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “detecting an obstacle” and “determination that the vehicle is unable to evacuate in response to detecting an obstacle” . Claim 3 recites “a vehicle that is unable to evacuate due to an obstacle in an evacuation place” However, there is no positive recitation of detecting an obstacle or the determination that the vehicle is unable to evacuate because of the obstacle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “separately receiving the detour route”. Claim 7 recites “a separately distributed detour route” . The examiner notes that there is no positive recitation of separately distributing or receiving the detour route. Claim 8 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
The examiner notes that every claim filed by the Applicant includes one or more 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph issues. While the examiner has made an effort to identify all the issues, the Applicant is respectfully requested to carefully review any amended claims prior to filing a response to this office action.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 1:
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
Claim 1 is directed toward route generation device and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Independent claim 6 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A route generation device comprising:
a route generation unit that generates route information from map information and destination information of a vehicle;
a route information storage unit that saves the route information;
a general vehicle traffic count calculation unit that calculates the number of general vehicles traveling on a travel route of an emergency vehicle from route information of the emergency vehicle and route information of a general vehicle saved in the route information storage unit; and
an emergency vehicle travel lane generation unit that generates travel lane information for determining whether a lane on which the emergency vehicle travels passes a current travel lane, an opposite lane, or a middle between the travel lane and the opposite lane, from the numbers of the general vehicles on a travel lane and an opposite lane on the travel route of the emergency vehicle which are calculated by the general vehicle traffic count calculation unit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “generates route information from map information and destination information of a vehicle “calculates the number of general vehicles traveling on a travel route of an emergency vehicle from route information of the emergency vehicle and route information of a general vehicle saved in the route information storage unit;” “generates travel lane information for determining whether a lane on which the emergency vehicle travels passes a current travel lane, an opposite lane, or a middle between the travel lane and the opposite lane, from the numbers of the general vehicles on a travel lane and an opposite lane on the travel route of the emergency vehicle which are calculated by the general vehicle traffic count calculation unit” steps encompass a human determining a route to follow based on a destination and using a paper map, and further observing and counting the number of vehicle starveling on a portion of the route, and determining which lane the emergency vehicle will travel based on the number of vehicles observed.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A route generation device comprising:
a route generation unit that generates route information from map information and destination information of a vehicle;
a route information storage unit that saves the route information;
a general vehicle traffic count calculation unit that calculates the number of general vehicles traveling on a travel route of an emergency vehicle from route information of the emergency vehicle and route information of a general vehicle saved in the route information storage unit; and
an emergency vehicle travel lane generation unit that generates travel lane information for determining whether a lane on which the emergency vehicle travels passes a current travel lane, an opposite lane, or a middle between the travel lane and the opposite lane, from the numbers of the general vehicles on a travel lane and an opposite lane on the travel route of the emergency vehicle which are calculated by the general vehicle traffic count calculation unit.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitations of “a route generation unit”, “a route information storage unit that saves the route information” “a general vehicle traffic count calculation unit” and “an emergency vehicle travel lane generation unit" the examiner submits that these limitations 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 and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Specifically, the courts have held that merely reciting the works “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitations of “a route generation unit”, “a route information storage unit that saves the route information” “a general vehicle traffic count calculation unit” and “an emergency vehicle travel lane generation unit" are recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “detecting” and “determining”. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer. See at least [0013] and [0052] of the instant application wherein the storage is described and wherein the structural support for the units as claimed are functions implemented on processors
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 1 does 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a route generation unit”, “a route information storage unit that saves the route information” “a general vehicle traffic count calculation unit” and “an emergency vehicle travel lane generation unit" are recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “counting” and “generating” and amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic components. See at least [0013] and [0052] of the instant application wherein the storage is described and wherein the structural support for the units as claimed are functions implemented on processors. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data output (e.g. notification of claims 6 and 8, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-8 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-8 are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al (JP-2020166412-A, hereinafter “Takagi”) in view of Mori et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0154312, hereinafter “Mori”).
Regarding claim 1, Takagi teaches a route generation device comprising:
a route generation unit that generates route information from map information and destination information of a vehicle (see at least Takagi and Figure 1 [0021] Based on the position information of the own vehicle detected by the GPS 131, the navigation device 130 indicates the route from the current position of the own vehicle to the destination and guides the driver. The navigation device 130 acquires map information from the in-vehicle database 140, and calculates the traveling route of the own vehicle from the position information of the own vehicle and the position information of the destination. The navigation device 130 outputs the position information of the own vehicle and the travel route information of the own vehicle to the in-vehicle controller 170. The travel route of the own vehicle includes the route that the own vehicle actually traveled and the route that the own vehicle is scheduled to travel from now on.” See also [0034] “In addition, the vehicle-mounted controller 170 acquires information about the emergency vehicle from the control system 200, which will be described later, via the vehicle-mounted communication device 150 by the information acquisition function. Information on emergency vehicles includes the type of emergency vehicle, the mode of the emergency vehicle during emergency driving, the position information of the emergency vehicle, the speed of the emergency vehicle (average speed, etc.), the travel route of the emergency vehicle, and the destination of the emergency vehicle. There is.”);
a route information storage unit that saves the route information (see at least Takagi Figure 1, wherein 230 is a databased configured to store route information, see also [0066] “The database 230 stores emergency vehicle information in the same manner as the in-vehicle database 140. The emergency vehicle information stored in the database 230 includes, in addition to the emergency vehicle information stored in the in-vehicle database 140, information on traffic rules applied to emergency vehicles and vehicles other than emergency vehicles during emergency driving. It has been.”) ;
[a general vehicle traffic count calculation unit that calculates the number of general vehicles traveling on a travel route of an emergency vehicle] determine congestion from route information of the emergency vehicle and route information of a general vehicle saved in the route information storage unit (see at least Takagi [0065] “Further, the communication device 210 can also communicate with other than the vehicle. For example, the communication device 210 can also communicate with the vehicle information and communication system VICS (registered trademark) (Vehicle Information and Communication System, hereinafter simply referred to as VICS), and the server 220 also receives information from the VICS. In addition, it is possible to grasp the current traffic situation and traffic light situation. The communication device 210 outputs the traffic information received from the VICS to the server 220. Examples of the traffic information include information such as a congested road, a congested distance, and a closed section. In addition, the traffic information includes information on the current color of each traffic light, information on the timing at which each traffic light is switched, and the like.” See also [0068] “The vehicle information acquisition function will be described. The server 220 acquires vehicle position information, surrounding environment information, travel route information, and information regarding the necessity of remote instruction from the vehicle via the communication device 210 by the vehicle information acquisition function. The server 220 is not limited to one vehicle, and can acquire this information from each of a plurality of vehicles. Further, the server 220 may constantly acquire such information at predetermined time intervals, or after acquiring the dispatch request information for the emergency vehicle via the communication device 210, these information may be acquired at predetermined time intervals. You may get the information of.”); and
an emergency vehicle travel lane generation unit that generates travel lane information for determining whether a lane on which the emergency vehicle travels passes a current travel lane, an opposite lane, or a middle between the travel lane and the opposite lane based on congestion [[from the numbers of the general vehicles on a travel lane and an opposite lane on the travel route of the emergency vehicle which are calculated by the general vehicle traffic count calculation unit.]] (see at least Figure 12 and [0091] “In the example of FIG. 12, the server 220 recognizes that there is no evacuation space in the lane L1 in which the vehicle V2 is traveling due to other vehicles and parked vehicles that are evacuating by the surrounding situation recognition function, and is opposed to the lane L1. Recognize that there is space on the lane side where emergency vehicles can travel. For example, the server 220 recognizes that there is a space in which an emergency vehicle can travel between the vehicles V3 and V4 parked in the lane L2. In this case, the server 220 specifies a position on the lane L1 corresponding to the space in the lane L2 as a shunting position. Then, the server 220 calculates the travel route to the specified escape position as the escape travel route, and transmits the information regarding the escape position to the vehicle V2 via the communication device 210. As a result, as shown in FIG. 12, the in-vehicle controller 170 of the vehicle V2 can automatically drive the vehicle V2 so as to stop in a state of being close to the parked vehicle on the lane L1 by the emergency driving function. .. In addition, in FIG. 12, the emergency vehicle E2 'shows a state in which the vehicle V2 is traveling in the oncoming lane (lane L2) after stopping at the shunting position, and the emergency vehicle E2'' is subsequently lane from the lane L2. The lane is changed to L1 and the vehicle is traveling in lane L1.” See also [0039] and which teaches determining that the travel lane of the emergency lane is the same lane as the own vehicle and [0043] which teaches the emergency vehicle is unlikely to travel on the opposite side of the road due to an obstacle (median) Thus, Takagi teaches determining congestion, the number of cars in the route and based on that determination where the emergency vehicle is likely to travel such as the own lane, the opposite lane or between.).
Takagi teaches determining the congestion along a route (see Takagi [0065] and [0068] as cited above, and based the congestion determining where the emergency vehicle is likely to travel such as the own lane, the opposite lane or between (see at least Takagi Figure 4, and 12 and [0091], [0039] and [0043] as cited above, but does not explicitly teach a general vehicle traffic count calculation unit that calculates the number of general vehicles traveling on a travel route.
Mori teaches teach a general vehicle traffic count calculation unit that calculates the number of general vehicles traveling on a travel route (see at least Mori, Abstract “A state estimation method executed by a state estimation apparatus including a processor and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to estimate a state related to congestion on a subject lane, includes acquiring a state related to congestion of a monitoring vehicle traveling on a non-subject lane, counting a number of vehicles traveling on the subject lane, the vehicles being overtaken by the monitoring vehicle or being oncoming vehicles passed by the monitoring vehicle, and estimating the state related to the congestion on the subject lane, using the state related to the congestion of the monitoring vehicle and the number of vehicles. In the estimating, when the number of the vehicles is equal to or greater than a threshold value according to the state related to the congestion of the monitoring vehicle, the state related to the congestion on the subject lane is estimated as traffic congestion.” See also [0049] and [0075] “According to the above-described event, the congestion-level estimation apparatus 200 may analyze the video captured by the camera of the monitoring vehicle to count the number of oncoming vehicles on the opposite lane (subject lane) passed by the monitoring vehicle per unit time period, and may determine that the level of congestion on the opposite lane (subject lane) is high if the number of oncoming vehicles passed by the monitoring vehicle is large.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takagi with the teaching of Mori, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Mori teaches, the system provides a estimate of congestion of vehicles traveling on a road (see at least [0178]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Takagi and Mori teach the route generation device according to claim 1, further comprising:
an evacuation lane calculation unit that calculates an evacuation lane along which the general vehicle can evacuate from travel lane information of the emergency vehicle (see at least Takagi [0091]..” In this case, the server 220 specifies a position on the lane L1 corresponding to the space in the lane L2 as a shunting position. Then, the server 220 calculates the travel route to the specified escape position as the escape travel route, and transmits the information regarding the escape position to the vehicle V2 via the communication device 210.” and as cited and discussed below. See also Figure 9 and [0084-0085] )
a number of evacuable vehicles calculation unit that calculates the number of vehicles that can be evacuated to the evacuation lane for each of the evacuation lanes calculated by the evacuation lane calculation unit (see at least Takagi Figure 12 and [0091] “In the example of FIG. 12, the server 220 recognizes that there is no evacuation space in the lane L1 in which the vehicle V2 is traveling due to other vehicles and parked vehicles that are evacuating by the surrounding situation recognition function, and is opposed to the lane L1. Recognize that there is space on the lane side where emergency vehicles can travel. For example, the server 220 recognizes that there is a space in which an emergency vehicle can travel between the vehicles V3 and V4 parked in the lane L2. In this case, the server 220 specifies a position on the lane L1 corresponding to the space in the lane L2 as a shunting position. Then, the server 220 calculates the travel route to the specified escape position as the escape travel route, and transmits the information regarding the escape position to the vehicle V2 via the communication device 210.” See also Figure 9 and [0085] “The server 220 recognizes that there is no evacuation space in the lane L1 in which the vehicle V2 is traveling by the surrounding situation recognition function due to other vehicles and parked vehicles that are evacuating, and the lane L2 adjacent to the lane L1. Knows that there is space for the vehicle V2 to evacuate. Then, in the case of the example of FIG. 9, the server 220 specifies a space located on the median strip side (oncoming lane side) of the lane L2 as a shunting space. The server 220 calculates the travel route to the specified escape space as the escape travel route, and transmits information about the escape position to the vehicle V2 via the communication device 210.” See also [0096] “In step S4, the vehicle-mounted controller 170 determines whether or not there is a shunting space. In the present embodiment, the in-vehicle controller 170 has a shelter space on the shoulder side of the road where the own vehicle can evacuate based on the information on the road width and the number of lanes included in the map information and the information on obstacles existing in the road. Determine if there is. If it is determined that there is a shunting space, the process proceeds to step S7, and if it is determined that there is no shunting space, the process proceeds to step S5.” See Mori for calculating the number of vehicles as described in the rejection of claim 1.” )
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Takagi and Mori teach The route generation device according to claim 1, further comprising an opposite lane travel determination unit that determines whether or not to allow entry to an opposite lane from obstacle information between a travel lane and the opposite lane, the obstacle information including presence/absence of a median strip (see at least Takagi Figure 4 and [0043] “Further, in FIG. 4, unlike FIGS. 2 and 3, a median strip B is provided between the lanes L1 and the lane L2. For the explanation of the vehicle V1' and the emergency vehicle E1', the explanation given with reference to FIG. 2 is incorporated. … Since it is separated by the median strip B, it is extremely unlikely that the emergency vehicle E1 will travel in the lane L2. Therefore, the in-vehicle controller 170 determines that it is not necessary to evacuate the own vehicle in the scene of the example of FIG.” See also Figure 9 and [0083-0085] “The server 220 recognizes that there is no evacuation space in the lane L1 in which the vehicle V2 is traveling by the surrounding situation recognition function due to other vehicles and parked vehicles that are evacuating, and the lane L2 adjacent to the lane L1. Knows that there is space for the vehicle V2 to evacuate. Then, in the case of the example of FIG. 9, the server 220 specifies a space located on the median strip side (oncoming lane side) of the lane L2 as a shunting space.”)
wherein the emergency vehicle travel lane generation unit generates travel lane information for determining whether a lane on which the emergency vehicle travels passes a current travel lane, an opposite lane, or a middle between the travel lane and the opposite lane, from information indicating whether it is possible to enter the opposite lane which is generated by the opposite lane travel determination unit (see at least Takagi Figure 4 and [0043] “Further, in FIG. 4, unlike FIGS. 2 and 3, a median strip B is provided between the lanes L1 and the lane L2. For the explanation of the vehicle V1' and the emergency vehicle E1', the explanation given with reference to FIG. 2 is incorporated. … Since it is separated by the median strip B, it is extremely unlikely that the emergency vehicle E1 will travel in the lane L2. Therefore, the in-vehicle controller 170 determines that it is not necessary to evacuate the own vehicle in the scene of the example of FIG.” See also Figure 9 and [0083-0085] “The server 220 recognizes that there is no evacuation space in the lane L1 in which the vehicle V2 is traveling by the surrounding situation recognition function due to other vehicles and parked vehicles that are evacuating, and the lane L2 adjacent to the lane L1. Knows that there is space for the vehicle V2 to evacuate. Then, in the case of the example of FIG. 9, the server 220 specifies a space located on the median strip side (oncoming lane side) of the lane L2 as a shunting space.” ).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, and 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
While the combination of Takagi and Mori teach determining congestion level based on a count of vehicles including vehicles in an oncoming lane (see at least Mori Abstract, [0049] and [0075]), the combination does not teach further comparing the number of passing vehicles of the general vehicle with the number of evacuable vehicles to determine a detour route for a vehicle with low priority. Accordingly, the combination does not teach the required elements of “further comprising a detour route derivation unit that compares the number of passing vehicles of the general vehicles derived from the route information storage unit with the number of evacuable vehicles calculated by the number of evacuable vehicles calculation unit and calculates a detour route for a vehicle with low priority provided upon prioritization when the number of passing vehicles exceeds the number of evacuable vehicles or a vehicle that is unable to evacuate due to an obstacle in an evacuation place” as recited by claim 3 and all of its dependents (claims 5-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20200193810-A1 to Kusama is cited for teaching determining congestion based on a count of vehicles.
US-20120033123-A1 to Inoue is cited for teaching determining the number of vehicles along a route to determine congestion.
US-20230264689-A1 to Hiramatsu teaches considering the position of the own vehicle and other vehicles to prevent congestion. While Hiramatsu teaches preventing congestion especially in view of an emergency vehicle, Hiramatsu does not teach determining the number of vehicles not does it teach an emergency vehicle travel lane generation unit that generates travel lane information of the emergency vehicle.
US-20230143613-A1 to Yilma teaches determining that an emergency vehicles route is approaching a general vehicle route and providing warning to the general vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662