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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on 10/21/2024. Claims 1 - 6 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-005502, filed on 01/17/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: “control unit” in claims 1, 3, 5.
Paragraph [0023] mentions that a control unit may be that of a CPU or GPU. For the purpose of examination, a control unit will be interpreted as a CPU or GPU.
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 § 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 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified the apparatus in Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
An operation management device comprising a control unit that
acquires map data indicating a first identifier, and latitude and longitude of each stop included in a route for operating one or more automated driving vehicles,
acquires timetable data indicating an operation timetable for each stop, in correlation with a second identifier, and latitude and longitude of each stop,
acquires characteristics data indicating characteristics of roads in surroundings of each stop, in correlation with the first identifier of each stop,
compares the latitude and longitude of the map data that is acquired with latitude and longitude of the timetable data that is acquired, and associates the first identifier of the map data and the second identifier of the timetable data, and
decides an operation plan of the one or more automated driving vehicles including a change in a driving mode in one or more sections in the route, based on an operation timetable corresponding to each second identifier of the timetable data and characteristics corresponding to the first identifier associated with each second identifier of the characteristics data.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could mentally compare the map data with the timetable data either using their brain or with a pen and paper.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step of “acquires map data indicating a first identifier, and latitude and longitude of each stop included in a route for operating one or more automated driving vehicles,”, is not more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is considered insignificant extrasolution activity.
Claims 2 - 6 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
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, & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240044656A1 (hereinafter, “Schmitt”), and further in view of US20160012724A1 (hereinafter, “Ahiko”), and further in view of US20230141127A1 (hereinafter, “Yu”), and further in view of US20200126427A1 (hereinafter, “Civitella”), and further in view of US20200064833A1 (hereinafter, “Fox”).
Regarding claim 1, Schmitt teaches an operation management device comprising a control unit that [0029] A controller (122) is present within the device (100).
acquires map data indicating a first identifier, and latitude and longitude of each stop included in a route for operating one or more automated driving vehicles [0198], [0202] - [0203], Schmitt teaches acquiring map data in order to show a representation of the area for more accurate mapping [0198]. All figures numbered 6 show this. Each stop is added to a route is designated in sequence, “Stop 1”, “Stop 2”, “Stop 3”, etc. along with the geographic location of each stop such as its latitude and longitude [0202] – [0203]. These stops being numbered are the identifiers of these stops.
13. Schmitt further does not explicitly teach acquires timetable data indicating an operation timetable for each stop, in correlation with a second identifier, and latitude and longitude of each stop,
However, Ahiko in the same field of endeavor, teaches acquires timetable data indicating an operation timetable for each stop, in correlation with a second identifier, and latitude and longitude of each stop (Fig. 2), Figure 2 shows a timetable of bus stop data with each stop containing a set of latitude and longitude coordinate points. Each stop has an identifier identifying that specific bus stop such as an originating bus stop ID, destination bus stop ID, and a bus stop ID. For examining purposes, the identifiers for each bus stop will be considered as second identifiers.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Schmitt with the teachings of Ahiko, to precisely correlate each data record to a specific vehicle for comparing or seeing route, arrival, and departure history.
14. Schmitt teaches …in correlation with the first identifier of each stop [0202] – [0203]. All figures numbered 6 show this. Each stop is added to a route is designated in sequence, “Stop 1”, “Stop 2”, “Stop 3”, etc. along with the geographic location of each stop such as its latitude and longitude [0202] – [0203]. These stops being numbered are the identifiers of these stops.
Schmitt does not explicitly teach acquires characteristics data indicating characteristics of roads in surroundings of each stop, in correlation with the first identifier of each stop,…
However, Yu teaches acquires characteristics data indicating characteristics of roads in surroundings of each stop,… [0085] Yu teaches a map server (950) which may provide map data such as points of interest along the road in relation to road size, road speed limits, traffic conditions, road status, and road conditions. All these variables summed up equate to characteristics of a road. Yu mentions a point of interest (POI) along a road which is considered a geographic location at which a vehicle is expected or permitted to stop, pause, or interact with the environment. Therefore, a POI along a road can refer to a stop along a single road or multiple stops amongst multiple roads considering a map server (950) captures multiple roads in order to create a geographic layout of the area.
Schmitt and Yu are analogous art because Schmitt teaches providing identifiers for a particular vehicle while Yu teaches on acquiring characteristics of a road. One of ordinary skill would have the motivation to combine these in order to associate detected hazards with specific vehicles or vehicle groups. Combining these teachings would have predictably enabled hazard information to be attributed to individual vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yu, to modify the teachings of the combination of Schmitt and Ahiko to include the teachings of Yu because it would improve data organization and validation.
15. Schmitt teaches …and associates the first identifier… [0202] – [0203] All figures numbered 6 show this. Each stop is added to a route is designated in sequence, “Stop 1”, “Stop 2”, “Stop 3”, etc. along with the geographic location of each stop such as its latitude and longitude [0202] – [0203]. These stops being numbered are the identifiers of these stops.
Schmitt does not explicitly teach compares the latitude and longitude of the map data that is acquired with latitude and longitude of the timetable data that is acquired,…of the map data and the second identifier of the timetable data, and
However, Ahiko teaches …of the timetable data…and the second identifier of the timetable data, and (Fig. 2), Ahiko teaches generating time tables for bus stops. A person of ordinary skill would understand that the recitation of bus stops along a route is not limited to stops associated solely with buses, but instead represents a particular example of vehicle stops along a route since a bus is considered a vehicle. Therefore, these timetables are equally applicable to other vehicles operating along a route. Each stop has an identifier identifying that specific bus stop such as an originating bus stop ID, destination bus stop ID, and a bus stop ID. For examining purposes, the second identifier will mean identifiers relating to that of timetables.
Ahiko does not explicitly teach compares the latitude and longitude of the map data that is acquired with latitude and longitude…that is acquired,…of the map data…
However, Civitella teaches compares the latitude and longitude of the map data that is acquired with latitude and longitude…that is acquired,…of the map data… ([0020] – [0023] Fig. 3) Civitella compares the GPS data (GPS data inherently uses latitude and longitude coordinates) acquired from the GPS information which contains GPS coordinate data (map data) to the GPS data to the planned travel route or timetable data in order to determine when a mobile object is near or following its expected route. By checking the mobile objects GPS coordinates and alignment between the actual trajectory and a planned travel route segment. The system can link the live GPS data with the corresponding planned travel route data. This geographic comparison allows the system to automatically pair the tracked position with the correct scheduled path and also recognize key journey events such as when a vehicle arrives at a scheduled stop, reaches a destination, or departs from it, based on when the GPS coordinates algin with the planned route’s stop locations and timing along the travel route data.
Schmitt, Ahiko, and Civitella are analogous art because Schmitt teaches assigning identifiers to multiple stops along a route for a vehicle while Ahiko generates timetables for multiple vehicle stops while Civitella teaches comparing latitude and longitude coordinates of GPS coordinate data with a planned travel route.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ahiko and Civitella, to modify the teachings of Schmitt to include the teachings of Ahiko and Civitella because this will allow for more precise matching of vehicle to a planned destination or arrival.
16. Schmitt teaches …corresponding to the first identifier… [0202] – [0203] All figures numbered 6 show this. Each stop is added to a route is designated in sequence, “Stop 1”, “Stop 2”, “Stop 3”, etc. along with the geographic location of each stop such as its latitude and longitude [0202] – [0203]. These stops being numbered are the identifiers of these stops.
Schmitt does not explicitly teach decides an operation plan of the one or more automated driving vehicles including a change in a driving mode in one or more sections in the route, based on an operation timetable corresponding to each second identifier of the timetable data and characteristics…associated with each second identifier of the characteristics data.
However, Fox teaches decides an operation plan of the one or more automated driving vehicles including a change in a driving mode in one or more sections in the route,… ([0015], [0092] – [0093] Fig. 5) A transition plan (operation plan) can be derived for the autonomous vehicle as it travels along a route. This transition plan is when a human takes back control of the self-driving system, manual operating mode. This transition plan will occur when it is safe to do so. This transition plan occurs when identified contextual factors are present and may need human intervention to assist [0015].
Schmitt as modified by Fox does not explicitly teach …based on an operation timetable corresponding to each second identifier of the timetable data and characteristics…with each second identifier of the characteristics data.
However, Ahiko teaches …based on an operation timetable corresponding to each second identifier of the timetable data…with each second identifier… (Fig. 2), Ahiko teaches generating time tables for bus stops. A person of ordinary skill would understand that the recitation of bus stops along a route is not limited to stops associated solely with buses, but instead represents a particular example of vehicle stops along a route since a bus is considered a vehicle. Therefore, these timetables are equally applicable to other vehicles operating along a route. Each stop has an identifier identifying that specific bus stop such as an originating bus stop ID, destination bus stop ID, and a bus stop ID. For examining purposes, the second identifier will mean identifiers relating to that of timetables.
Schmitt as modified by Fox and Ahiko does not explicitly teach …and characteristics…of the characteristics data.
However, Yu teaches …and characteristics…of the characteristics data [0085]. Yu teaches a map server (950) which may provide map data such as points of interest along the road in relation to road size, road speed limits, traffic conditions, road status, and road conditions. All these variables summed up equate to characteristics of a road. Yu mentions a point of interest (POI) along a road which is considered a geographic location at which a vehicle is expected or permitted to stop, pause, or interact with the environment. Therefore, a POI along a road can refer to a stop along a single road or multiple stops amongst multiple roads considering a map server (950) captures multiple roads in order to create a geographic layout of the area.
Schmitt, Fox, Ahiko, and Yu are analogous art because Schmitt teaches assigning multiple stops along a route and giving them identifiers while Fox teaches a transition plan for a vehicle to change from autonomous mode to manual mode while Ahiko teaches generating timetable data and having those tables have second identifiers while Yu teaches on acquiring characteristics of roads.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Fox, Ahiko, and Yu to modify the teachings of Schmitt to include the teachings of Fox, Ahiko, and Yu to accurately determine which roads may need to have human intervention to ensure safety of the vehicle and driver.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Schmitt reference does not explicitly teach the operation management device according to claim 1, wherein changing the driving mode in the one or more sections includes switching to manual operation in the one or more sections.
However, Fox in the same field of endeavor, teaches the operation management
device according to claim 1, wherein changing the driving mode in the one or more sections includes switching to manual operation in the one or more sections ([0015], [0092] – [0093] Fig. 5). A transition plan (operation plan) can be derived for the autonomous vehicle as it travels along a route. This transition plan is when a human takes back control of the self-driving system, manual operating mode. This transition plan will occur when it is safe to do so. This transition plan occurs when identified contextual factors are present and may need human intervention to assist [0015]. This may occur multiple times in different sections of the route depending on the route itself and how intense it may be.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Schmitt with the teachings of Fox, to ensure the safety of the vehicle and the driver.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Schmitt reference does not explicitly teach the operation management device according to claim 1, wherein changing of the driving mode in the one or more sections includes changing an automated driving level in the one or more sections.
However, Fox in the same field of endeavor, teaches the operation management
device according to claim 1, wherein changing of the driving mode in the one or more sections includes changing an automated driving level in the one or more sections ([0068] – [0070] Fig. 4). Fox teaches a transition plan that involves switching an autonomous vehicle to a manual mode on a route. It is obvious that when this transition plan occurs, a change in the automated driving level happens because the responsibility for driving now shifts to the human driver. According to the SAE J3016 standard, driving automation is categorized into levels, level 0 – level 5 that describe how much of the driving is performed by the automated driving system versus a human driver. In manual mode, the human driver performs all aspects of driving (level 0). In autonomous mode, the automated driving system performs all or some of the driving tasks (level 3 – 5). Therefore, when the transition plan occurs and the human driver is now in full control (level 0), a driving level change is also happening.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Schmitt with the teachings of Fox, to lower or raise the driving level of the vehicle according to the detected condition on the route.
Claim(s) 3 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240044656A1 (hereinafter, “Schmitt”), and further in view of US20160012724A1 (hereinafter, “Ahiko”), and further in view of US20230141127A1 (hereinafter, “Yu”), and further in view of US20200126427A1 (hereinafter, “Civitella”), and further in view of US20200064833A1 (hereinafter, “Fox), and further in view of US20210286359A1 (hereinafter, “Della Penna”), and further in view of US20240317255A1 (hereinafter, “Mocherla”).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Schmitt reference does not explicitly teach the operation management device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit
acquires record data indicating an operation record of the one or more automated driving vehicles, and
when a record that switching to manual driving not included in the operation plan has been performed is detected as a change record in at least one section in the route included in the operation record indicated by the record data that is acquired, the operation plan is updated, and switching to the manual driving in the at least one section is included in the operation plan.
However, Della Penna teaches the operation management device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit
acquires record data indicating an operation record of the one or more automated driving vehicles, and
when a record… [0018], [0025], [0036] Della Penna teaches an event recorder (156) which logs down anomalies that occur. This event recorder (156) will have operational records that capture data when a vehicle has performed certain actions. Some of these actions may come from within the vehicle internally.
The modified Schmitt reference does not explicitly teach …that switching to manual driving not included in the operation plan has been performed is detected as a change record in at least one section in the route included in the operation record indicated by the record data that is acquired, the operation plan is updated, and switching to the manual driving in the at least one section is included in the operation plan.
However, Fox teaches …that switching to manual driving…switching to the manual driving in the at least one section… ([0015], [0092] – [0093] Fig. 5). A transition plan (operation plan) can be derived for the autonomous vehicle as it travels along a route. This transition plan is when a human takes back control of the self-driving system, manual operating mode. This transition plan will occur when it is safe to do so. This transition plan occurs when identified contextual factors are present and may need human intervention to assist [0015]. This may occur multiple times in different sections of the route depending on the route itself and how intense it may be.
The modified Schmitt reference does not explicitly teach …not included in the operation plan has been performed is detected as a change record in at least one section in the route included in the operation record indicated by the record data that is acquired, the operation plan is updated, and…is included in the operation plan.
However, Mocherla teaches …not included in the operation plan has been performed is detected as a change record in at least one section in the route included in the operation record indicated by the record data that is acquired, the operation plan is updated, and…is included in the operation plan ([0068], [0070], [0121] – [0126] Fig. 4 - 5). Mocherla teaches an autonomous vehicle (AV) (102) planner system. This system is configured to generate a navigation planner (202) (operation plan) that defines vehicles maneuvers and behavior along routes [0068], [0070]. The navigation planner (202) may have to determine maneuvers for the AV (102) that aren’t apart of the original plan. The AV (102) can detect when an AV (102) maneuver deviates from the rules and restrictions from navigation planner (202) which is indicative of the current operation plan not properly supporting the vehicle operation. In response to this trigger (404) which caused the AV to have to perform different vehicle maneuvers, the AV (102) identifies a second planner called the specialized planner (204) capable of supporting the required maneuvers and switches from the navigation planner (202) to the specialized planner (204) thereby updating and renewing the vehicle operation plan [0121] – [0126]. The AV (102) is then operated according to the updated operation plan generated by the specialized planner (204) thereby incorporating operational conditions not originally supported by the initial navigation planner (202). This supports the conceptual basis for updating an operation plan when an unexpected event (such as a manual takeover that Fox teaches) is recorded (Della Penna teaches an event recorder) by using the recorded event data as part of the contextual history.
Della Penna, Fox, and Mocherla are analogous art to Schmitt because Della Penna teaches an event recorder that log downs vehicle actions and unexpected anomalies while Fox teaches having an autonomous vehicle switch from autonomous mode to a manual mode while Mocherla teaches on planning vehicle actions and when a trigger is detected, the vehicle will then switch to a different plan that incorporates new vehicle actions to overcome this trigger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Della Penna and Mocherla, to modify the teachings of the combination of the modified Schmitt reference with Fox to include the teachings of Della Penna and Mocherla, to have adaptable behavior and history recollection of the vehicle’s events as well as unexpected adapting vehicle actions logged.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Schmitt reference does not explicitly teach the operation management device according to claim 4, wherein the control unit
acquires record data indicating an operation record of the one or more automated driving vehicles, and
when a record that changing the automated driving level not included in the operation plan has been performed is detected as a change record in at least one section in the route included in the operation record indicated by the record data that is acquired, the operation plan is updated, and changing the automated driving level in the at least one section is included in the operation plan.
However, Della Penna teaches the operation management device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit
acquires record data indicating an operation record of the one or more automated driving vehicles, and
when a record… [0018], [0025], [0036] Della Penna teaches an event recorder (156) which logs down anomalies that occur. This event recorder (156) will have operational records that capture data when a vehicle has performed certain actions. Some of these actions may come from within the vehicle internally.
The modified Schmitt reference does not explicitly teach …that changing the automated driving level not included in the operation plan has been performed is detected as a change record in at least one section in the route included in the operation record indicated by the record data that is acquired, the operation plan is updated, and changing the automated driving level in the at least one section is included in the operation plan.
However, Fox teaches …that changing the automated driving level…changing the automated driving level in the at least one section… ([0068] – [0070] Fig. 4). Fox teaches a transition plan that involves switching an autonomous vehicle to a manual mode on a route. It is inherent that when this transition plan occurs, a change in the automated driving level happens because the responsibility for driving now shifts to the human driver. According to the SAE J3016 standard, driving automation is categorized into levels, level 0 – level 5 that describe how much of the driving is performed by the automated driving system versus a human driver. In manual mode, the human driver performs all aspects of driving (level 0). In autonomous mode, the automated driving system performs all or some of the driving tasks (level 3 – 5). Therefore, when the transition plan occurs and the human driver is now in full control (level 0), a driving level change is also happening inherently.
The modified Schmitt reference does not explicitly teach …not included in the operation plan has been performed is detected as a change record in at least one section in the route included in the operation record indicated by the record data that is acquired, the operation plan is updated, and…is included in the operation plan.
However, Mocherla teaches …not included in the operation plan has been performed is detected as a change record in at least one section in the route included in the operation record indicated by the record data that is acquired, the operation plan is updated, and…is included in the operation plan ([0121] – [0126] Fig. 4 - 5). Mocherla teaches an autonomous vehicle (AV) (102) planner system. This system is configured to generate a navigation planner (202) (operation plan) that defines vehicles maneuvers and behavior along routes [0068], [0070]. The navigation planner (202) may have to determine maneuvers for the AV (102) that aren’t apart of the original plan. The AV (102) can detect when an AV (102) maneuver deviates from the rules and restrictions from navigation planner (202) which is indicative of the current operation plan not properly supporting the vehicle operation. In response to this trigger (404) which caused the AV to have to perform different vehicle maneuvers, the AV (102) identifies a second planner called the specialized planner (204) capable of supporting the required maneuvers and switches from the navigation planner (202) to the specialized planner (204) thereby updating and renewing the vehicle operation plan. The AV (102) is then operated according to the updated operation plan generated by the specialized planner (204) thereby incorporating operational conditions not originally supported by the initial navigation planner (202). This supports the conceptual basis for updating an operation plan when an unexpected event (such as a manual takeover that Fox teaches) is recorded (Della Penna teaches an event recorder) by using the recorded event data as part of the contextual history.
Della Penna, Fox, and Mocherla are analogous art to Schmitt because Della Penna teaches an event recorder that log downs vehicle actions and unexpected anomalies while Fox teaches having an autonomous vehicle switch driving levels while Mocherla teaches on planning vehicle actions and when a trigger is detected, the vehicle will then switch to a different plan that incorporates new vehicle actions to overcome this trigger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Della Penna and Mocherla, to modify the teachings of the combination of the modified Schmitt reference with Fox to include the teachings of Della Penna and Mocherla to have adaptable behavior and history recollection of the vehicle’s events as well as unexpected adapting vehicle actions logged.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240044656A1 (hereinafter, “Schmitt”), and further in view of US20160012724A1 (hereinafter, “Ahiko”), and further in view of US20230141127A1 (hereinafter, “Yu”), and further in view of US20200126427A1 (hereinafter, “Civitella”), and further in view of US20200064833A1 (hereinafter, “Fox), and further in view of US20240083297A1 (hereinafter, “Nagata”).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Schmitt reference does not explicitly teach a Mobility as a Service (MaaS) providing method using the operation management device according to claim 1.
However, Nagata teaches a Mobility as a Service (MaaS) providing method
using the operation management device according to claim 1 [0020]. Nagata teaches a vehicle (10) being a Mobility as a Service (MaaS).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Schmitt with the teachings of Fox, to create easier use of access for users for seamless planning and flexibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm 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, Erin Piateski can be reached on (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.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669