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 .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-15 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the present application is a national stage entry of PCT/KR2023/009343 filed on 07/03/2023 which claims Pro 63/415,25 filed on 10/11/2022 and Pro 63/357,658 filed on 07/01/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02/26/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claims 3, 7, 11, 14-15), the recited limitation “determining that a first device obstructs a traffic of a pedestrian” is indefinite because it is unclear what it meant by “a traffic of a pedestrian” as pedestrian do not ordinarily have traffic and the claim does not clarify/define whether it refers to a walking path, a flow of pedestrian movement, a right of way, or some other conditions. Further, the term “obstructs” lacks clarity as the claim does not specify whether obstruction requires a present physical blockage/obstruction, a predicted future path overlap, partial interference, or merely a reduction in speed. Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claims 14-15), the recited limitation “wherein the first operation includes a group driving with a second device” is indefinite because the term “group driving” is not defined in the claim and is unclear whether “group driving” requires coordinated movement, simply heading in the same direction, communication, proximity within a threshold distance, platooning, or merely simultaneous travel, or something else. Further, the claim does not make clear whether the “group driving” includes the first device itself participating in the group or whether the second device performs the group driving independently of the first device. Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 2 (similarly claims 3-13), recites “The first device of claim 1” is indefinite because claim 1 is a method claim because it lacks clarity on claim category and scope.
Regarding Claim 2, the recited limitation “wherein the first operation includes a modification of a driving path or a pause of a driving” is indefinite because it is unclear to the Examiner whether the first operation must include both group driving and modification of a driving path or a pausing of a driving, or group driving is one embodiment and modification of a driving path or pausing of a driving path is another embodiment, or pausing replaces group driving, or they can occur sequentially. Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
The dependent claims that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
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.
Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1 – YES
Claim 1 is directed to a method, Claim 14-15 are directed to a device. Therefore, claims 1 and 14-15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 14 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
determining that the first device obstructs a traffic of a pedestrian; and
determining whether to perform a first operation for preventing the obstruction, based on the determination that the first device obstructs the traffic of the pedestrian, wherein the first operation includes a group driving with a second device.
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. For example, the bolded limitation can be performed by a human, for example, a person riding a bicycle on a shared sidewalk and sees that he/she is about to ride directly into a pedestrian crossing his/her path (corresponds to determining…obstruct a traffic of a pedestrian); he/she recognize that if he/she continues straight, he/she will obstruct or collide with the pedestrian so he/she should not continue straight (corresponds to determining…traffic of the pedestrian) and that he/she should steer his/her bicycle into the path of another cyclist ahead of him/her riding in the same direction and effectively joining their line of travel (corresponds to wherein the first operation…second device). Examiner notes that the same analysis applies to electric scooters and/or other road vehicles.
Examiner would also note MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation (driver behavior).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – 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”):
A method comprising:
determining that the first device obstructs a traffic of a pedestrian; and
determining whether to perform a first operation for preventing the obstruction, based on the determination that the first device obstructs the traffic of the pedestrian, wherein the first operation includes a group driving with a second device.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “processor” of claims 14-15 merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise abstract ideas and/or additional limitations in a generic or general-purpose computer environment, where processor is recited as generic processor performing a generic computer function of acquiring data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely automates the steps.
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 impost any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for 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 limitations of “a processor”, the examiner submits that the processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component performing generic calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As explained, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S., 208,223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Electric Power Group, LLC v, Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for collection, analysis and display constitute insignificant extra-solution activity). Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016)( Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-13 do not recite any further limitations that causes the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial except and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
As such, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significant more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al. (US 2020/0272155 A1 hereinafter Lo) in view of Matsumoto (US 2022/0221869 A1).
Regarding claim 14 (similarly claims 1 and 15), Lo teaches A first device (see at least Fig. 1 [0030]: mobile robots 102) comprising:
at least one transceiver; (see at least Fig. 1 [0035-0045]: The mobile robot includes communication unit 114 may be operably connected to one or more transceivers of the mobile robot and Laser projection system may include one or more respective LIDAR transceivers.)
at least one processor (see at least Fig. 1 [0035]: The mobile robot includes an ECU that may include a microprocessor or ASIC devices.) ; and
at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions, wherein the instructions, based on being executed by the at least one processor (see at least Fig. 1 [0035]: the ECU may also include an internal processing memory. The storage unit may be configured to store data associated with computer-implemented instructions associated with each of the pedestrian avoidance strategies that may be implemented by the pedestrian avoidance application.), cause the first device to:
determine that the first device obstructs a traffic of a pedestrian (see at least Fig. 1-2D [0032-0062]: The pedestrian avoidance application may analyze the position data and may estimate an intersection point of the mobile robot and the pedestrian and an expected point in time when mobile robot and the pedestrian will pass the intersection point based on the current path of the mobile robot and the path of the pedestrian.); and
determine whether to perform a first operation for preventing the obstruction, based on the determination that the first device obstructs the traffic of the pedestrian, (see at least Fig. 1-2D [0032-0062]:The pedestrian avoidance application may be configured to implement one or more pedestrian avoidance strategies based on the positions of the pedestrian and the mobile robot with respect to the expected intersection point of paths and the expected point in time when the mobile robot and the pedestrian will reach and cross the expected intersection point of their respective path. The plurality of pedestrian avoidance strategies may include a baseline strategy, a curve strategy, an accelerate strategy, and a curve and accelerate strategy.)
It may be alleged that Lo does not explicitly teach wherein the first operation includes a group driving with a second device.
Matsumoto is directed to system and method for operating autonomous driving robots in a crowded environment with people, Matsumoto teaches wherein the first operation includes a group driving with a second device. (see at least Fig. 2, 4 [0041-0078]: The system detects a congestion status in a target area and generates a scheduled route for each autonomous vehicle based on the status. The system determine whether multiple schedule routes overlaps or within a certain distance from each other and computes arrival time of each vehicle to the section. In a case where the route generation devices generates the schedule route so as to overlap the two schedule routes, when there are multiple autonomous vehicle heading in the same direction, a plurality of autonomous vehicle may be formed in a platoon to unify the scheduled route in order to use the space efficiently and reduce the possibility of re-changing routes and the possibility of collision.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lo’s mobile robot’s pedestrian avoidance system to incorporate the technique of performing a group driving with surrounding autonomous vehicles when congestion is detected and the autonomous vehicles are located within a certain distance from each other and are heading the same direction as taught by Matsumoto with reasonable expectation of success because when there are multiple autonomous vehicle heading in the same direction, a plurality of autonomous vehicle may be formed in a platoon to unify the scheduled route in order to use the space efficiently and reduce the possibility of re-changing routes and the possibility of collision (Matsumoto [0068]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto teaches The first device of claim 1,
Lo further teaches wherein the first operation includes a modification of a driving path or a pause of a driving. (see at least Fig. 1-2D [0032-0062]: During implementation of the curve pedestrian avoidance strategy, the mobile robot may be controlled to change its moving direction and consequently its current path to a modified path that enables the robot to turn away from the pedestrian before the mobile robot is to cross the expected intersection point between the mobile robot and the pedestrian.))
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto teaches The first device of claim 1,
Lo further teaches wherein that the first device obstructs the traffic of the pedestrian is determined based on at least one of a distance between the first device and a third device being less than or equal to a threshold value, the first device occupying a passage of the pedestrian, a driving speed of the first device being greater than or equal to a first threshold value, or a length of an overlapping path of a driving path of the first device and a driving path of the pedestrian being greater than or equal to a second threshold value. (see at least Fig. 1-2D [0032-0062]: The pedestrian avoidance application may analyze the position data and may estimate an intersection point of the mobile robot and the pedestrian and an expected point in time when mobile robot and the pedestrian will pass the intersection point based on the current path of the mobile robot and the path of the pedestrian.)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto teaches The first device of claim 1, further comprising:
It may be alleged that Lo does not explicitly teach transmitting, to the second device, first information,
wherein the first operation is the group driving,
wherein the first information includes at least one of a presence of the first device, a position of the first device, or information for a group driving region, and
wherein the first operation is performed based on the first information.
Matsumoto is directed to system and method for operating autonomous driving robots in a crowded environment with people, Matsumoto teaches transmitting, to the second device, first information, (see at least Fig. 2, 4 [0041-0078]: The system determine whether multiple schedule routes overlaps or within a certain distance from each other and computes arrival time of each vehicle to the section. In a case where the route generation devices generates the schedule route so as to overlap the two schedule routes, when there are multiple autonomous vehicle heading in the same direction, a plurality of autonomous vehicle may be formed in a platoon to unify the scheduled route in order to use the space efficiently and reduce the possibility of re-changing routes and the possibility of collision.)
wherein the first operation is the group driving, (see at least Fig. 2, 4 [0041-0078]: when there are multiple autonomous vehicle heading in the same direction, a plurality of autonomous vehicle may be formed in a platoon to unify the scheduled route in order to use the space efficiently and reduce the possibility of re-changing routes and the possibility of collision.)
wherein the first information includes at least one of a presence of the first device, a position of the first device, or information for a group driving region, and wherein the first operation is performed based on the first information. (see at least Fig. 2, 4 [0041-0078]: The system determine whether multiple schedule routes overlaps or within a certain distance from each other and computes arrival time of each vehicle to the section. In a case where the route generation devices generates the schedule route so as to overlap the two schedule routes, when there are multiple autonomous vehicle heading in the same direction, a plurality of autonomous vehicle may be formed in a platoon to unify the scheduled route in order to use the space efficiently and reduce the possibility of re-changing routes and the possibility of collision.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lo’s mobile robot’s pedestrian avoidance system to incorporate the technique of transmitting information to a surrounding autonomous vehicle to perform platooning driving with a first vehicle based on information of a presence and position information of a first and/or second and route for performing platooning operation as taught by Matsumoto with reasonable expectation of success because when there are multiple autonomous vehicle heading in the same direction, a plurality of autonomous vehicle may be formed in a platoon to unify the scheduled route in order to use the space efficiently and reduce the possibility of re-changing routes and the possibility of collision (Matsumoto [0068]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto teaches The first device of claim 1,
It may be alleged that Lo does not explicitly teach wherein the first operation is the group driving, and wherein first operation is determined to be performed based on the first device being positioned within a group driving region.
Matsumoto is directed to system and method for operating autonomous driving robots in a crowded environment with people, Matsumoto teaches wherein the first operation is the group driving, and wherein first operation is determined to be performed based on the first device being positioned within a group driving region. (see at least Fig. 2, 4 [0041-0078]: The system detects a congestion status in a target area and generates a scheduled route for each autonomous vehicle based on the status. The system determine whether multiple schedule routes overlaps or within a certain distance from each other and computes arrival time of each vehicle to the section. In a case where the route generation devices generates the schedule route so as to overlap the two schedule routes, when there are multiple autonomous vehicle heading in the same direction, a plurality of autonomous vehicle may be formed in a platoon to unify the scheduled route in order to use the space efficiently and reduce the possibility of re-changing routes and the possibility of collision.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lo’s mobile robot’s pedestrian avoidance system to incorporate the technique of performing a group driving with surrounding autonomous vehicles when congestion is detected and the autonomous vehicles are located within a certain distance from each other and are heading the same direction as taught by Matsumoto with reasonable expectation of success because when there are multiple autonomous vehicle heading in the same direction, a plurality of autonomous vehicle may be formed in a platoon to unify the scheduled route in order to use the space efficiently and reduce the possibility of re-changing routes and the possibility of collision (Matsumoto [0068]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto teaches The first device of claim 1, further comprising:
Lo further teaches receiving, from a third device, first information, wherein that the first device obstructs the traffic of the pedestrian is determined based on the first information. (see at least Fig. 1 [0030-0046]: The communication unit 114 may be configured to connect to the internet cloud 120 to send and receive communication signals to and from the external server 108. The external server 108 may host a neural network 122 that may be pre-trained with one or more data sets that may be analyzed to determine one or more relative positions of the pedestrian 104 with respect to the mobile robot 102 , an estimated trajectory of the pedestrian 104 , an estimated speed of the pedestrian 104 , an estimated pathway of the pedestrian 104 , an expected intersection point 202 a between the pedestrian 104 and the mobile robot 102 , and/or additional data associated with the pedestrian 104 and/or the mobile robot 102.)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto The first device of claim 7,
Lo further teaches wherein the third device is a server or a robot. (see at least Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto teaches The first device of claim 7,
It may be alleged that Lo does not explicitly teach wherein the first information includes at least one of a position of the third device, a driving speed of the third device, a driving direction of the third device, or a driving acceleration of the third device.
Matsumoto is directed to system and method for operating autonomous driving robots in a crowded environment with people, Matsumoto teaches wherein the first information includes at least one of a position of the third device, a driving speed of the third device, a driving direction of the third device, or a driving acceleration of the third device. (see at least Fig. 2, 4 [0041-0078]: The system detects a congestion status in a target area and generates a scheduled route for each autonomous vehicle based on the status. The system determine whether multiple schedule routes overlaps or within a certain distance from each other and computes arrival time of each vehicle to the section. In a case where the route generation devices generates the schedule route so as to overlap the two schedule routes, when there are multiple autonomous vehicle heading in the same direction, a plurality of autonomous vehicle may be formed in a platoon to unify the scheduled route in order to use the space efficiently and reduce the possibility of re-changing routes and the possibility of collision.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lo’s mobile robot’s pedestrian avoidance system to incorporate the technique of performing a group driving with surrounding autonomous vehicles when congestion is detected and the autonomous vehicles are located within a certain distance from each other and are heading the same direction as taught by Matsumoto with reasonable expectation of success because when there are multiple autonomous vehicle heading in the same direction, a plurality of autonomous vehicle may be formed in a platoon to unify the scheduled route in order to use the space efficiently and reduce the possibility of re-changing routes and the possibility of collision (Matsumoto [0068]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto teaches The first device of claim 7,
Ho further teaches wherein the first information includes a location of the first device, a driving speed of the first device, a driving direction of the first device, or a driving acceleration of the first device. (see at least Fig. 1 [0030-0046]: The communication unit 114 may be configured to connect to the internet cloud 120 to send and receive communication signals to and from the external server 108. The external server 108 may host a neural network 122 that may be pre-trained with one or more data sets that may be analyzed to determine one or more relative positions of the pedestrian 104 with respect to the mobile robot 102 , an estimated trajectory of the pedestrian 104 , an estimated speed of the pedestrian 104 , an estimated pathway of the pedestrian 104 , an expected intersection point 202 a between the pedestrian 104 and the mobile robot 102 , and/or additional data associated with the pedestrian 104 and/or the mobile robot 102.)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto teaches The first device of claim 7,
Lo further teaches wherein the first information is information indicating that the first device obstructs the traffic of the pedestrian. (see at least Fig. 1 [0030-0046]: The communication unit 114 may be configured to connect to the internet cloud 120 to send and receive communication signals to and from the external server 108. The external server 108 may host a neural network 122 that may be pre-trained with one or more data sets that may be analyzed to determine one or more relative positions of the pedestrian 104 with respect to the mobile robot 102 , an estimated trajectory of the pedestrian 104 , an estimated speed of the pedestrian 104 , an estimated pathway of the pedestrian 104 , an expected intersection point 202 a between the pedestrian 104 and the mobile robot 102 , and/or additional data associated with the pedestrian 104 and/or the mobile robot 102.)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto teaches The first device of claim 1,
It may be alleged that Lo does not explicitly teach wherein the first operation is a group driving, and wherein the first device is a leader device related to the group driving.
Matsumoto is directed to system and method for operating autonomous driving robots in a crowded environment with people, Matsumoto teaches wherein the first operation is a group driving, and wherein the first device is a leader device related to the group driving. (see at least Fig. 2, 4 [0041-0078]: The system detects a congestion status in a target area and generates a scheduled route for each autonomous vehicle based on the status. The system determine whether multiple schedule routes overlaps or within a certain distance from each other and computes arrival time of each vehicle to the section. In a case where the route generation devices generates the schedule route so as to overlap the two schedule routes, when there are multiple autonomous vehicle heading in the same direction, a plurality of autonomous vehicle may be formed in a platoon to unify the scheduled route in order to use the space efficiently and reduce the possibility of re-changing routes and the possibility of collision.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lo’s mobile robot’s pedestrian avoidance system to incorporate the technique of performing a group driving with surrounding autonomous vehicles when congestion is detected and the autonomous vehicles are located within a certain distance from each other and are heading the same direction as taught by Matsumoto with reasonable expectation of success because when there are multiple autonomous vehicle heading in the same direction, a plurality of autonomous vehicle may be formed in a platoon to unify the scheduled route in order to use the space efficiently and reduce the possibility of re-changing routes and the possibility of collision (Matsumoto [0068]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto teaches The first device of claim 1, further comprising:
Lo further teaches receiving, from a third device, first information, wherein the first information is information that commands to perform the first operation, and wherein the first operation is determined to be performed, based on the first information. (see at least Fig. 1 [0041-0082]: The external server may host a neural network that may be pre-trained with one or more data sets that may be analyzed to determine one or more relative positions of the pedestrian with respect to the mobile robot 102 , an estimated trajectory of the pedestrian 104 , an estimated speed of the pedestrian 104 , an estimated pathway of the pedestrian 104 , an expected intersection point 202 a between the pedestrian 104 and the mobile robot 102 , and/or additional data associated with the pedestrian 104 and/or the mobile robot 102. The pedestrian avoidance application 106 may be configured to communicate with the neural network 122 to determine the aforementioned information associated with the pedestrian 104 and/or the mobile robot 102 during a state of travel within the surrounding environment of the mobile robot 102 . Such information may be utilized to select and implement one or more of the plurality of pedestrian avoidance strategies by the pedestrian avoidance application 106 .
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo in view of Matsumoto and Kim (KR2022/0018110A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto teaches The first device of claim 5,
The combination of Lo in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein the group driving region includes at least one of a sidewalk, a crosswalk, or a shoulder.
Kim is directed to grouping system for self-driving vehicles, Kim teaches wherein the group driving region includes at least one of a sidewalk, a crosswalk, or a shoulder. (see at least Fig. 1 [0018-0019, 0037-0047]: A group of autonomous driving means in which the means of autonomous driving recognizes obstacles and sets the driving routes on the sidewalk.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lo and Matsumoto to incorporate the technique of having autonomous vehicles performing group driving on a sidewalk as taught by Kim with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would improve driving smoothness and promoting pedestrian safety (Kim [0019]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667