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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2-15, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 13 and 20 of claim 1, lines 1-2 of claims 3-7, lines 2 and 6 of claims 8-9, lines 1-2 of claims 10-11, lines 2 and 4-5 of claims 12-13, and lines 1-2 of claim 15 read “the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to” which appears to be a continuity error since the instructions already cause the moving object control apparatus to perform other limitations earlier in the claims. This should read “the instructions further cause the moving object control apparatus to” to improve continuity and clarity.
Claim 1 line 10, claim 17 line 6, claim 18 line 10, claim 19 line 8, and claim 20 line 7 read “a stop position” which appears to be a continuity error since there is already antecedent basis for the stop position in the claims. Thus, this should read “the stop position” to maintain continuity and improve clarity.
Claim 11 line 5 reads “each of target” which appears to be a typographical error and should read “each of the targets” or “each target” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
An “ultra-compact mobility vehicle” is interpreted as a micromobility vehicle in light of ¶ 0002: “ultra-compact mobility vehicle (also referred to as a micro mobility vehicle)”. A micromobility vehicle is interpreted as known in the art as a vehicle under 500 kg. See “Micromobility” from Wikipedia for evidence of this definition as known in the art.
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:
In claims 1 and 18-20, the "image capturing device" in the limitation "captured by an image capturing device of the moving object" invokes 112(f) as "device" is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the capturing of image data.
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.
Regarding the “image capturing device”, a review of the specification does not appear to reveal any explicit structure for this unit. However, the examiner understands that at least one of the detection units as recited in ¶ 0040 are likely meant to be the structure of this unit as it fulfills the recited claimed limitation:
“The vehicle 100 includes detection units 15 to 17 that detect targets around the vehicle 100. The detection units 15 to 17 are a group of external sensors that monitors the surroundings of the vehicle 100, and in the case of the present embodiment, each of the detection units 15 to 17 is an imaging device that captures an image of the surroundings of the vehicle 100 and includes, for example, an optical system such as a lens and an image sensor. In the vehicle 100, in addition to the imaging device, a radar or a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) can also be used. The vehicle 100 can acquire a position (hereinafter, referred to as relative position) of a specific person or a specific target viewed from a coordinate system of the vehicle 100 based on image information obtained by the detection unit. The relative position can be indicated as, for example, a position of 1 m on the left and a position of 10 m in front.” (Emphasis added.)
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.
Examiner’s note: Examiner respectfully requests the applicant amend the specification to make the structural aspects of the image capturing device clearly explicit or amend the claims to prevent calling 112(f). While no claims are rejected under 112(b) and the applicant is not required to utilize verbatim language within the specification as recited within the claims (and thus cannot be objected to for this reason), the application suffers from lack of clarity when claimed devices are not explicitly provided structure. This may introduce difficulties regarding fully understanding the intended structure of the invention from the publication alone for any future examiner, attorney, inventor, or otherwise.
Examiner further notes that any response from applicant without amendment and/or without evidence to proper structure recited within the specification denying the interpretation above may result in a 112(b) rejection for indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended limitation “using a predetermined number of target regions for which the probability is higher than a predetermined threshold as the candidates” appears to be new matter, not supported explicitly or implicitly in the original disclosure at the time of filing. The disclosure instead only has support for subjective high probabilities and likelihoods (see ¶ 0070 for example) and probabilities being relatively compared to find the highest probability (see ¶ 0094 for example). However, there does not appear to be any support for the probabilities being compared to a threshold. Since the disclosure at the time of filing does not appear to provide support for the amended limitation, it is considered new matter. Applicant is advised that new matter must be canceled, or applicant may provide arguments indicating the precise location in the originally filed disclosure where the amended subject matter can be found either explicitly or implicitly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara et al. US 20200262454 A1 (hereinafter Uehara) in view of Hicok et al. US 20190265703 A1 (hereinafter Hicok).
Regarding claim 1, Uehara teaches a moving object control apparatus that adjusts a stop position of a moving object based on an instruction of a user, the moving object control apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (Figure 2 processor 23); and
a memory storing instructions which, when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors, cause the moving object control apparatus to (Figure 2 memory 22; ¶ 0049-0051 and 0082-0086 at least detail memories that store various programs to perform various function using processors of a dispatch device):
acquire instruction information of the user (¶ 0092-0093 disclose that the user's mobile phone 4 acquires a taxiing request);
acquire a captured image of a surrounding environment of the moving object (¶ 0063 discloses capturing an image around a vehicle) captured by an image capturing device of the moving object (Figure 5 shows a camera 33 on the vehicle);
determine a stop position of the moving object (Figure 9 S4-S10); and
control traveling of the moving object to cause the moving object to travel toward the determined stop position (¶ 0060 discloses the travel control device makes the vehicle travel towards the destination; see also ¶ 0096),
wherein the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to (i) determine a first stop position using position information of a communication device used by the user or position information corresponding to a destination included in first instruction information of the user (¶ 0093 discloses a dispatch request, used for navigation of the vehicle as shown in Figure 9, includes a destination in which a user would like to board), and (ii) determine a second stop position based on second instruction information of the user (¶ 0101-0102 discloses obtaining position identifying information from a user and navigating to the identified position) and a region of a predetermined target identified in the captured image (¶ 107-111 discloses navigating to a final stop position based on comparison between the user's image and image captured by the vehicle) in response to a position of the moving object falling within a predetermined distance from the first stop position by traveling of the moving object (¶ 0097-0099 discloses requesting position identifying information when a vehicle is within a predetermined range from the position saved in memory), and
wherein the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to determine the second stop position (¶ 0101-0102 discloses obtaining position identifying information from a user and navigating to the identified position) by identifying designation of the predetermined target from the second instruction information of the user (¶ 0108-109 discloses matching features in the vehicle's environment with features in the user's image; see also Figure 14) and then identifying the region of the predetermined target from the captured image (¶ 109 discloses detecting regions of features in the vehicle environment).
Uehara does not teach an image capturing device comprising a lens and an image sensor.
Hicok teaches an image capturing device comprising a lens and an image sensor (¶ 0300 discloses a plurality of cameras with a plurality of lens to capture a periphery of a vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Uehara to incorporate the teachings of Hicok. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the lenses and cameras of Hicok for the generic camera of Uehara. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of capturing a vehicle’s periphery renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Uehara reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Uehara further teaches that the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to determine the first stop position using one or more pieces of instruction information including a pick-up request (Figure 9 discloses transmitting specified position information in response to receiving a dispatch request) and the destination (¶ 0093 discloses a dispatch request, used for navigation of the vehicle as shown in Figure 9, includes a destination in which a user would like to board).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Uehara reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Uehara further teaches that the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to calculate a probability distribution indicating a probability of being the stop position for regions of one or more targets identified in the captured image (¶ 0107-0109 discloses comparing features in a vehicle's image and a user's image to determine relevance level, i.e. probability of being a stop position), and determine the second stop position based on a region of a target having a highest probability (¶ 0110-0111 discloses when the relevance level is above a threshold, i.e. a "highest" probability, the vehicle is determined as having arrived at the pick-up position).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the same method of claim 1 and therefore the same grounds of rejection apply.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the same method of claim 18 in context of the moving object and therefore the same grounds of rejection apply.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the same method of claim 1 and therefore the same grounds of rejection apply. Only new limitations not presented in claim 1 will be further discussed. Uehara further teaches that the information processing method is executed by an information processing apparatus (¶ 0049-0051 and 0082-0086 at least detail memories that store various programs to perform various function using processors of a dispatch device; see Figure 2 for evidence of the display device being a computer since it has a memory and processor; see Figure 1 where a user terminal is a mobile phone 4; see also ¶ 0066-0069), the method further comprising:
acquiring position information of the moving object from the moving object (¶ 0059 discloses acquiring a vehicle’s current position with GNSS);
transmitting, to the moving object, a control command for controlling traveling of the moving object to cause the moving object to travel toward the determined stop position (¶ 0095-0096 discloses sending a commanded location for the vehicle to travel to wherein the vehicle travels to said location based on the received data).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the same method of claim 1 in context of a non-transitory storage medium and therefore the same grounds of rejection apply. Only new limitations not presented in claim 1 will be further discussed. Uehara further teaches a storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform the moving object control method (¶ 0049-0051 and 0082-0086 at least detail memories that store various programs to perform various function using processors of a dispatch device; see Figure 2 for evidence of the display device being a computer since it has a memory and processor; see also ¶ 0066-0069).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara as modified by Hicok as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimotani et al. US 20220295017 A1 (hereinafter Shimotani) and Li US 11880800 B2 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Uehara reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Uehara further teaches identifying the region of the predetermined target from the captured image based on the second instruction information of the user (¶ 107-111 discloses navigating to a final stop position based on comparison between the user's image and image captured by the vehicle).
Uehara does not teach determining the second stop position by identifying the user in the captured image based on the instruction information of the user and the captured image.
Shimotani teaches determining the second stop position by identifying the user in the captured image based on the instruction information of the user and the captured image (at least Figure 10 shows a user can indicate their position on an image captured by a vehicle using a mobile terminal; see also ¶ 0138-0142).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Uehara to incorporate the teachings of Shimotani such that a user of Uehara can further select where they are in a vehicle's image so the vehicle can stop at the user’s position as taught by Shimotani. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce confusion of which person is the user the vehicle should stop for and pick up in crowded areas.
Uehara does not teach identifying the region of the predetermined target from the captured image based on an action of the user identified in the captured image.
Li teaches identifying the region of the predetermined target from the captured image based on an action of the user identified in the captured image (col. 6 lines 31-60 discloses that after detection of a user, the vehicle will either remain stopped at the current location or drive to the user based on a detected user's action; here, the user is considered the target).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Uehara to incorporate the teachings of Li such that once a vehicle has been detected to be in a location relevant to the user's image as taught by Uehara, the vehicle may further choose to stop in the vicinity of the user or move further closer to the user based on a user's action as taught by Li. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for easy implementation of user pick-up by allowing waiting for a user to approach the vehicle, and further improve user experience and prevent confusion and awkwardness by driving the vehicle to the user if the user does not approach the vehicle as disclosed by Li (col. 12 lines 40-44).
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara as modified by Hicok as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimotani.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Uehara reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Uehara further teaches that the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to determine the first stop position (¶ 0093 discloses a dispatch request, used for navigation of the vehicle as shown in Figure 9, includes a destination in which a user would like to board) in response to reception of instruction information including a pick-up request (Figure 9 discloses transmitting specified position information in response to receiving a dispatch request).
Uehara does not teach determining the first stop position using the position information of the communication device.
Shimotani teaches determining the first stop position using the position information of the communication device (¶ 0094 discloses obtaining a user's position based on location of a mobile terminal; ¶ 0066 discloses the mobile terminal may be a mobile phone).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Uehara to incorporate the teachings of Shimotani such that when the user submits a pick-up request according to Uehara, the location of the user's phone can be utilized for determination of the pick-up location. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to increase speed of entering information such that a user is not required to manually enter a location and thus further improving user experience.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Uehara reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Uehara does not teach that the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to acquire the instruction information based on utterance information of the user.
Shimotani teaches that the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to acquire the instruction information based on utterance information of the user (¶ 0133, for example, discloses receiving a voice indicating position identifying information of the user).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Uehara to incorporate the teachings of Shimotani such that the position identifying information of Uehara can further include received voice information of Shimotani. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve ease of operation of the taxiing system and improve accessibility for people with disabilities wherein touch screen operation alone is insufficient.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara as modified by Hicok as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakayamada JP 2019067012 A (hereinafter Nakayamada; examiner relies upon the translated copy provided by the applicant).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Uehara reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Uehara does not teach that the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to cause the moving object to travel at a traveling speed reduced according to a predetermined standard in response to the position of the moving object falling within the predetermined distance from the first stop position.
Nakayamada teaches that the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to acquire cause the moving object to travel at a traveling speed reduced according to a predetermined standard in response to the position of the moving object falling within the predetermined distance from the first stop position (¶ 0022-0023 discloses decelerating the vehicle to a slower speed when entering an allocation area).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Uehara to incorporate the teachings of Nakayamada such that when the vehicle enters the dispatch area as taught by Uehara, the vehicle's speed can be reduced according to Nakayamada. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve probability of detecting a taxi requesting user as taught by Nakayamada (¶ 0022).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara as modified by Hicok and Nakayamada as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Park et al. US 20220073099 A1 (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Uehara reference teaches all of claim 6 as detailed above.
Uehara does not teach that the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to reduce the traveling speed according to a distance from the position of the moving object to a position of the predetermined target. While Nakayamada may also be interpreted as teaching this limitation in ¶ 0022-0023 wherein the target would be an allocation area, for the purpose of completeness of record, Park is utilized for this limitation.
Park teaches that the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to reduce the traveling speed according to a distance from the position of the moving object to a position of the predetermined target (¶ 0123 discloses reducing a vehicle's speed to a target speed when the distance to a stop location is a target distance then reducing the speed to zero after traveling for a certain period; see also ¶ 0129 for a different example stopping profile).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Uehara to incorporate the teachings of Park such that when the vehicle detects the relevancy over a threshold and thus detects the matched features as taught by Uehara, a distance to the features detected by Uehara can be calculated and when the distance meets a target distance, the vehicle's speed can be reduced to a preset speed and then further reduced to zero as taught by Park. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to optimize stopping profile to provide a smooth and exact stop based on target location.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara as modified by Hicok as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao US 20210383699 A1 (hereinafter Xiao).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Uehara reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Uehara further teaches that the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to calculate a probability distribution indicating a probability of being the stop position for regions of a plurality of targets identified in the captured image (¶ 0107-0109 discloses comparing features in a vehicle's image and a user's image to determine relevance level, i.e. probability of being a stop position) and determine the second stop position according to target regions for which the probability is higher than a threshold as the candidates (¶ 0107 discloses determining if the relevancy level of the image is above a threshold).
Uehara does not teach determining the second stop position according to a distance to each of targets as candidates using a predetermined number of target regions for which the probability indicates the regions as the candidates.
Xiao teaches determining the second stop position according to a distance to each of targets as candidates using a predetermined number of target regions for which the probability indicates the regions as the candidates (Figure 3 discloses determining a parking location as the location having a smallest distance S309 of a collection of reference locations with the highest priority levels S301; see also ¶ 0029).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Uehara to incorporate the teachings of Xiao such that once the image data is satisfactorily matched according to the teachings of Uehara according to a relevancy level having a higher than a threshold value, a predetermined number of the matching parking locations identified by Uehara can be compared to determine the parking location with the least distance to the vehicle to determine the stopping location as taught by Xiao. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce fuel consumption and time spent parking.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara as modified by Hicok as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chian Li US 20180374002 A1 (hereinafter Chian).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Uehara reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Uehara does not teach that when the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to acquire instruction information related to another destination or another target while the moving object travels toward the determined stop position, the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to determine a new stop position related to the another destination or the another target while continuing traveling.
Chian teaches that when the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to acquire instruction information related to another destination or another target while the moving object travels toward the determined stop position (¶ 0091 discloses a user can select a new destination anytime whether the vehicle is traveling or stopped), the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to determine a new stop position related to the another destination or the another target while continuing traveling (¶ 0091 discloses the newly entered destination replaces the old destination).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Uehara to incorporate the teachings of Chian such that when the vehicle operates according to Uehara, the user can, at any time, specify a new destination for the vehicle to travel to according to Chian. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user experience and flexibility of the system by allowing destination changing.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara as modified by Hicok as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lynch et al. US 20220092718 A1 (hereinafter Lynch).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Uehara reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Uehara does not teach that the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to acquire instruction information related to another destination or another target while the moving object travels toward the determined stop position, the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to transmit additional instruction information for narrowing down the another destination or the another target to the communication device.
Lynch further teaches that the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to acquire instruction information related to another destination or another target while the moving object travels toward the determined stop position (¶ 0031 discloses that, while traveling on a route to a pickup location, the user device may determine that the vehicle may need to reroute to a different destination due to road blocks), the instructions cause the moving object control apparatus to transmit additional instruction information for narrowing down the another destination or the another target to the communication device (¶ 0031 discloses notifying a user via the user device of the new pickup location and requesting authorization for the new pickup location).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Uehara to incorporate the teachings of Lynch such that the method of Uehara can check for road closures and blockages that may require a different pickup destination to be suggested as taught by Lynch. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user experience and speed of pickup by avoiding blocked or slowed roads.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara as modified by Hicok as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang US 20240166243 A1 (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Uehara reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Uehara further teaches that the first stop position is determined using an absolute position that is a position of a target from a position based on a specific geographic coordinate (¶ 0097 discloses using GNSS to determine location relative to a specified location indicating specified location is in geographic coordinates as well).
Uehara does not explicitly teach that the second stop position is determined using a relative position of the target viewed from a coordinate system of the moving object.
Zhang teaches that that the second stop position is determined using a relative position of the target viewed from a coordinate system of the moving object (¶ 0063 discloses determining a relative distance between a vehicle and a user and determining navigation instructions based on the relative distance).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Uehara to incorporate the teachings of Zhang such that when a user cannot identify a vehicle according to the teachings of Uehara, communication between a user and vehicle will occur wherein relative distance is determined between the vehicle and user and the vehicle is controlled accordingly to bring the vehicle to the user as taught by Zhang. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to resolve problems of inaccurate pick-up points and positioning deviation and further improve riding convenience and flexibility as disclosed in Zhang (¶ 0064).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara as modified by Hicok as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakurada et al. US 20220270490 A1 (hereinafter Sakurada).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Uehara reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Uehara does not teach that the moving object is an ultra-compact mobility vehicle.
Sakurada teaches that the moving object is an ultra-compact mobility vehicle (¶ 0041 "micromobility vehicle").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Uehara to incorporate the teachings of Sakurada. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the micromobility vehicle of Sakurada for the generic vehicle of Uehara. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of autonomously transporting passengers renders the claim obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims contain the allowable subject matter indicated in the Office Action dated 2/23/2026.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 5/20/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the 112(b) and 101 rejections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 2/23/2026. These/this rejections have/has been withdrawn.
The amendment filed 5/20/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: "using a predetermined number of target regions for which the probability is higher than a predetermined threshold as the candidates".
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter or clearly indicate support for the limitation in the disclosure at the time of filing in the reply to this Office Action.
Specification amendments filed 5/20/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the specification, title, and some of the drawing objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 2/23/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Drawing amendments filed 5/20/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the drawing objection not overcome by specification amendments of record detailed in the Office Action dated 5/20/2026. These/this objection have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 15-16, applicant argues that Uehara does not teach the limitation of now-canceled claim 2 which has been amended into claim 1. More specifically, applicant argues that Uehara does not teach “identifying designation of the predetermined target from the second instruction information”.
Firstly, applicant argues features that are not claimed in the independent claims. Specifically, the receiving of utterance information. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the reception of utterance information) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This argument is mildly pertinent to claim 15, however, which is rejected using Shimotani. Shimotani ¶ 0133 discloses obtaining utterance information and using that for identifying a terminal holder.
Secondly, applicant argues that Uehara describes basic feature matching between two images which is different from the claimed invention which obtains a target’s name from an instruction and identifies that target according to the understood name in the image. Examiner respectfully argues that the claim as written is much broader than this interpretation. Firstly, a designation must not be a specific name or title as applicant alleges. Examples from the applicant’s own specification give non-specific designation examples such as “over there” (see ¶ 0096). Thus, it is reasonable to interpret a designation as more than just a semantic title and more so a broader identification of the target. Interpreting designation as a target’s identification, identified features in an image provided by a user satisfy this interpretation. Furthermore, if applicant is not convinced, examiner points to Figure 14 of Uehara which shows an example of matching a sign feature identified in a user’s image PV to features identified in a vehicle’s peripheral NV2. Such a basic feature matching would equivalently perform the claimed designation based identification and navigation as currently claimed. If applicant wishes to more specifically detail semantic interpretation of utterance, obtaining of semantic names from utterance, and determination of places from an image based on semantic names such that the broader interpretation presented by the examiner becomes unreasonable, examiner recommends adding these details into the claims provided no new matter is provided.
On pages 16-17, applicant indicates that Uehara does provide a name based navigation which navigates to a destination on a map based on a received name and argues that this does not fulfil the claimed limitations as it fails to identify a region of an image associated with the designation. Examiner agrees and respectfully asserts that this navigation by name and map alone are not what the examiner relies upon for the grounds of rejection regarding the amended subject matter.
On page 17, applicant argues that Shimotani does not teach “identifying designation of a predetermined target from the user’s instruction information and then identifying a region of that target from the captured image”. Examiner respectfully asserts that Shimotani is not used for this aspect, but for the sake of argument, examiner will address this argument. Examiner respectfully asserts that Shimotani does also, in alternative, teach identifying a designation of a predetermined target from a user’s instruction. For example, Figure 10 shows a selection of a person on an image as “me”. “Me” here is the identifying designation that is received and understood by the vehicle in, for example, the flowchart of Figure 3. Here, understanding a designation and identifying a target in an image (being a person) based on the designation can occur in one step. Another example, closer to the applicant’s intended invention, comes from ¶ 0133-0136 which disclose a variant that uses a user’s voice, for example the user saying “the person who is wearing black is me”, rather than the user selecting their location on an image. While semantic interpretation of this voice data does not appear to be explicitly detailed in this variant, for the vehicle to be able to adequately understand the received semantic information and identify a user in an image from said semantic information as required in, for example, the flowchart of Figure 3, such semantic processing must exist for the invention to function. In light of this, Shimotani even more closely teaches the applicants intended invention of receiving a target’s utterance, understanding the utterance to obtain a semantic label, and identifying an object based on the semantic label. Thus, even if applicant is not convinced by the examiner’s utilization of Uehara, applicant is advised that further amendments would still be required to bring the case in condition for allowance.
On page 17, applicant argues that Li does not teach “identifying a target designation from instruction information or identifying a region of a predetermined target in a captured image based on such designation.” Examiner agrees and respectfully asserts that Li is not relied upon for this limitation.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights