DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/935,015, filed on 09 December 2024.
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 .
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 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.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
a. “data receiving unit” in claim 11
b. “route setting unit” in claim 11
c. “memory unit” in claim 11
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification discloses the corresponding structure for the “data receiving unit” in [0046]-[0047]; for the “route setting unit” in [0049] and Figures 3 and 7A-7C; and for the memory unit in [0052] in the specification filed on 09 December 2024.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 and 8-11 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 2
Claim 2 recites "…each regional base station…", but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this/these feature(s) in the claim. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, “each regional base station” will be read as “a regional base station".
Claim 2 recites "…receive at least one or more pieces of wireless communication environment information such as frequency bands that can be used in the region, an amount of communication traffic generated in the region, data transmission and reception reliability, data processing amount, data transmission and reception efficiency, and data transmission and reception signal strength.". The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the claimed invention requires the elements listed after "such as". As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, "…receive at least one or more pieces of wireless communication environment information such as…” will be read as "…receive at least one or more pieces of wireless communication environment information including at least one or more of…".
Regarding Claims 3-4 and 8-10
Claims 3-4 and 10 recite "…may be performed…" and claim 8 similarly recites "…may be collected…". The phrase "may be" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the claimed invention requires the elements associated with "may be". As such, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 8. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claims will be interpreted as follows:
Claim 3: "
Claim 4: "wherein the fourth step is performed to set a shortest distance"
Claim 8: " wherein step 4-3 is performed in a manner of releasing all or part of the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle
Claim 10: "
Regarding Claims 4 and 11
Claim 4 recites "…set the autonomous driving route to preferentially include regions…" and claim 11 similarly recites "…sets the autonomous driving route to preferentially include regions…". The phrase "preferentially" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the claimed invention requires the regions to be included. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, "preferentially” will be read as if omitted.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a method of setting an autonomous driving route using wireless communication environment information for a vehicle capable of driving in an autonomous driving mode, the method comprising:
a first step of receiving regional wireless communication environment information from a communication company server;
a second step of receiving real-time traffic information from a control server;
a third step of receiving a destination from a user; and
a fourth step of setting an autonomous driving route from a current location of the user or a starting point input by the user to the destination by reflecting the wireless communication environment information and the real-time traffic information.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim recites the limitations of “a third step of receiving a destination from a user;” and “a fourth step of setting an autonomous driving route from a current location of the user or a starting point input by the user to the destination by reflecting the wireless communication environment information and the real-time traffic information.”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person viewing wireless communication environment information, real-time traffic information and a desired destination for a driver. The person can then, with the aid of pen and paper, set the most efficient driving route from the current location of the user to the desired destination by passing through regions with relatively little traffic and through regions with relatively strong wireless communication. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception 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”).
The claim recites additional steps of “a first step of receiving regional wireless communication environment information from a communication company server; a second step of receiving real-time traffic information from a control server;”. These steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the route setting steps) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the “data receiving unit” is a conventional computer component and does not provide any indication that is anything other than a conventional computer component. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-10
Claim 2 recites the method according to claim 1,
wherein the first step is performed to receive wireless communication environment information from each regional base station of the communication company server, and receive at least one or more pieces of wireless communication environment information such as frequency bands that can be used in the region, an amount of communication traffic generated in the region, data transmission and reception reliability, data processing amount, data transmission and reception efficiency, and data transmission and reception signal strength.
Claim 3 recites the method according to claim 1,
further comprising, after the first step,
step 1-1 of constructing a wireless communication environment map according to a regional data reception level based on the received wireless communication environment information;
step 1-2 of performing an autonomous driving test on the wireless communication environment map; and
step 1-3 of updating the wireless communication environment map by reflecting the result of the test, wherein
steps 1-1 to 1-3 may be performed repeatedly.
Claim 4 recites the method according to claim 1,
wherein the fourth step may be performed to set a shortest distance or minimum travel time and distance to the destination as the autonomous driving route, and set the autonomous driving route to preferentially include regions where the wireless communication environment information or the real-time traffic information reaches predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle.
Claim 5 recites the method according to claim 1,
further comprising, after the fourth step, step 4-1 of confirming whether the wireless communication environment information or the traffic information of each region within the set autonomous driving route reaches predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle.
Claim 6 recites the method according to claim 5,
further comprising, after step 4-1, step 4-2 of re-setting, when a region that does not reach the predetermined criteria is included in the set autonomous driving route, the autonomous driving route to include, instead of the region, other regions that reach the predetermined criteria without going out of the autonomous driving route more than a predetermined range.
Claim 7 recites the method according to claim 5,
further comprising, after step 4-1, step 4-3 of re-setting, when a region that does not reach the predetermined criteria is included in the set autonomous driving route, the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle in the corresponding region.
Claim 8 recites the method according to claim 7,
wherein step 4-3 is performed in a manner of releasing all or part of the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle so that data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle may be collected from the vehicle.
Claim 9 recites the method according to claim 8,
wherein step 4-3 is performed to autonomously determine the data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle according to a result of artificial intelligence learning performed in advance, and collect the data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle using at least one or more among information collected from at least one or more among a camera, a sensor, and an array antenna provided in the vehicle and information already stored in the vehicle.
Claim 10 recites the method according to claim 1,
further comprising, after the fourth step,
a fifth step of receiving driving information of a vehicle driven along the set autonomous driving route;
a sixth step of storing the driving information of the vehicle to be mapped to regional wireless communication environment information; and
a seventh step of setting predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle on the basis of the stored information, wherein
the fifth to seventh steps may be performed repeatedly.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a method including at least one step. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories because the claims are to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitations of “step 1-1 of constructing a wireless communication environment map according to a regional data reception level based on the received wireless communication environment information; step 1-2 of performing an autonomous driving test on the wireless communication environment map; and step 1-3 of updating the wireless communication environment map by reflecting the result of the test, wherein steps 1-1 to 1-3 may be performed repeatedly.”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the person performing the autonomous driving route setting mental process discussed above, by further drawing a wireless communication environment map via the aid of pen and paper. The person can then test various routes along the map for optimal distance(s) and timing(s) and update the map accordingly. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation of “wherein the fourth step may be performed to set a shortest distance or minimum travel time and distance to the destination as the autonomous driving route…”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the person performing the autonomous driving route setting mental process discussed above, by further setting the most efficient route according to a shortest distance or minimal travel time to the destination. The most efficient driving route can include passing through regions with relatively little traffic and through regions with relatively strong wireless communication. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation of “further comprising, after the fourth step, step 4-1 of confirming whether the wireless communication environment information or the traffic information of each region within the set autonomous driving route reaches predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the person performing the autonomous driving route setting mental process discussed above, by further determining whether the wireless communication environment information or the traffic information of each region within the set autonomous driving route reaches predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation of “further comprising, after step 4-1, step 4-2 of re-setting, when a region that does not reach the predetermined criteria is included in the set autonomous driving route, the autonomous driving route to include, instead of the region, other regions that reach the predetermined criteria without going out of the autonomous driving route more than a predetermined range.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the person performing the autonomous driving route setting mental process discussed above, by further selecting new candidate region(s) for the route when an analyzed region does not meet a predetermined criteria. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation of “further comprising, after step 4-1, step 4-3 of re-setting, when a region that does not reach the predetermined criteria is included in the set autonomous driving route, the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle in the corresponding region.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the person performing the autonomous driving route setting mental process discussed above, by further setting an autonomous driving mode for the vehicle for each region that does not reach the predetermined criteria. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation of “a seventh step of setting predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle on the basis of the stored information,”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the person performing the autonomous driving route setting mental process discussed above, by further setting predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle on the basis of the stored information. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception 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”).
Claims 3-7 do not recite any additional elements.
Claims 8-9 recite additional steps of “wherein step 4-3 is performed in a manner of releasing all or part of the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle so that data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle may be collected from the vehicle.” and “wherein step 4-3 is performed to autonomously determine the data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle according to a result of artificial intelligence learning performed in advance”. These limitations which include a vehicle amount to mere indication of a field of use or technological environment. They do not amount to significantly more than the abstraction exception itself and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment such as a vehicle, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
Claims 2, 9 and 10 recite additional steps of “wherein the first step is performed to receive wireless communication environment information from each regional base station of the communication company server, and receive at least one or more pieces of wireless communication environment information such as frequency bands that can be used in the region, an amount of communication traffic generated in the region, data transmission and reception reliability, data processing amount, data transmission and reception efficiency, and data transmission and reception signal strength.”, “collect the data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle using at least one or more among information collected from at least one or more among a camera, a sensor, and an array antenna provided in the vehicle and information already stored in the vehicle.” and “a fifth step of receiving driving information of a vehicle driven along the set autonomous driving route; a sixth step of storing the driving information of the vehicle to be mapped to regional wireless communication environment information;”. The steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the “route setting” step(s)) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the autonomous vehicle field. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering and displaying steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the “data receiving unit” is a conventional computer component and does not provide any indication that is anything other than a conventional computer component. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claims 2-10 are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11
Claim 11 recites a device for setting an autonomous driving route using wireless communication environment information for a vehicle capable of driving in an autonomous driving mode, the device comprising:
a data receiving unit for receiving regional wireless communication environment information from a communication company server and receiving real-time traffic information from a control server;
a route setting unit for setting an autonomous driving route from the current location of a user or a starting point input by the user to a destination input by the user by reflecting the wireless communication environment information and the real-time traffic information; and
a memory unit for storing driving information of a vehicle driven along the autonomous driving route, wherein
the route setting unit sets the shortest distance or minimum travel time and distance to the destination as the autonomous driving route, and sets the autonomous driving route to preferentially include regions where the wireless communication environment information or the real-time traffic information reaches predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a device. Thus, the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a manufacture/machine. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim recites the limitations of “setting an autonomous driving route from the current location of a user or a starting point input by the user to a destination input by the user by reflecting the wireless communication environment information and the real-time traffic information;” and “sets the shortest distance or minimum travel time and distance to the destination as the autonomous driving route, and sets the autonomous driving route to preferentially include regions where the wireless communication environment information or the real-time traffic information reaches predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “route setting unit”. That is, other than reciting the “route setting unit”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses a person viewing wireless communication environment information, real-time traffic information and a desired destination for a driver. The person can then, with the aid of pen and paper, set the most efficient driving route from the current location of the user to the desired destination by determining the shortest distance or minimal travel time. The most efficient driving route can include passing through regions with relatively little traffic and through regions with relatively strong wireless communication. The mere nominal recitation of route setting unit does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception 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”).
The claim recites the additional element “route setting unit”. The “route setting unit” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is described at high level of generality and is merely a computer being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
The claim recites additional elements/steps of “a data receiving unit for receiving regional wireless communication environment information from a communication company server and receiving real-time traffic information from a control server;” and “a memory unit for storing driving information of a vehicle driven along the autonomous driving route,”. These steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the route setting steps) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, for the additional elements in the claim in which the “route setting unit” is merely a tool being used to perform the abstract idea, the same analysis applies here as above. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the “data receiving unit” and “memory unit” are conventional computer components and does not provide any indication that they are anything other than a conventional computer components. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 20200033147 A1 and Ahn hereinafter), in view of Kawano (US 20240391491 A1 and Kawano hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1
Ahn teaches a method of setting an autonomous driving route using wireless communication environment information for a vehicle capable of driving in an autonomous driving mode (see all Figs.; [0014]-[0015]), the method comprising:
a first step of receiving regional wireless communication environment information from a communication company server (see Figs. 10-11, all; Fig. 13, steps S501-S502; [0015 "The method includes receiving first data about a communication technology being used by a first device of a plurality of V2X devices and a start position of the first device transmitted from the first device such that a server for determining a driving mode and a path considering the communication environment determines the driving mode and path, calculating a plurality of paths of the first device to a destination, receiving, in real time, second data about a communication technology being used by each device of the plurality of V2X devices distributed on the plurality of paths except for the first device and a current position of each device, analyzing a first communication environment over the entire section for each of the plurality of paths using the second data..."], [0224]-[0227] and [0248]-[0253]);
a second step of receiving real-time traffic information (see [0004] and [0259 "The server 503 calculates the optimal path R1 based on the result obtained by analyzing the communication environment in this way. In the present invention, the optimal path means a path optimal to perform the autonomous driving based on a road traffic condition and a communication situation for the communication technology being used by the first device, and here, the autonomous driving includes remote driving, cluster driving, and autonomous driving in which the first vehicle 510 self-drives without intervention of the user."]);
a third step of receiving a destination from a user (see Fig. 13, step S501; [0015], [0227] and [0248 "First, with reference to FIGS. 13 and 14, before the user who rides on the first vehicle 510 starts to a destination (P2, refer to FIG. 14), the user inputs position information on the destination to the first device at a starting point (P1, refer to FIG. 14). If the destination position information is input to the first device by the user, the first device transmits the destination position information, a starting position of the first vehicle 510 and a type of the communication technology being used by the first device to the server, and the server receives these (S501)."]); and
a fourth step of setting an autonomous driving route from a current location of the user or a starting point input by the user to the destination by reflecting the wireless communication environment information and the real-time traffic information (see Fig. 13, steps S505-S507; Fig. 14, all; [0004], [0014]-[0015 "...providing primarily recommended paths of the plurality of paths in which a numerical value of a result obtained by analyzing the first communication environment is a predetermined numerical value or more, an estimated time of arrival to the destination for each of the primarily recommended paths, and an driving mode corresponding to each primarily recommended path to the first device, and receiving, from the first device, first user information including a path selected by a user and a driving mode corresponding to the selected path. The first communication environment is represented by converting a key performance indicator (KPI) of a communication technology being used by the first device into a numerical value."], [0017]-[0018], [0227]-[0229], [0248], [0254]-[0257] and [0259 "The server 503 calculates the optimal path R1 based on the result obtained by analyzing the communication environment in this way. In the present invention, the optimal path means a path optimal to perform the autonomous driving based on a road traffic condition and a communication situation for the communication technology being used by the first device..."]).
Although it may be inherent and/or implied, Ahn does not explicitly teach receiving the real-time traffic information from a control server.
Kawano teaches a method of setting an autonomous driving route for a vehicle capable of driving in an autonomous driving mode (see all Figs.; [0007]), the method comprising:
a second step of receiving real-time traffic information from a control server (see [0007], [0037]-[0038 "The management server 200 is an external device that is present outside the vehicle 1. The management server 200 communicates with one or more vehicles 1 via a communication network. The management server 200 includes a database 220. The database 220 stores a part or all of the traffic environment information required by the vehicle 1. The traffic environment information stored in the database 220 includes information of the in-vehicle sensor uploaded from one or a plurality of vehicles 1. The processor 110 of the vehicle 1 can download necessary information from the traffic environment information stored in the database 220 to the traffic environment information storage area 150 by accessing the management server 200."] and [0042 "Some of the traffic environment information can be acquired by the in-vehicle device of the vehicle 1, and some of the traffic environment information can be acquired from the management server 200."] and [0042]);
a third step of receiving a destination from a user (see [0051]); and
a fourth step of setting an autonomous driving route from a current location of the user or a starting point input by the user to the destination by reflecting the real-time traffic information (see Figs. 4A-4B, all; [0007]-[0008], [0039], [0043 "In the trained model 25, a simulation for determining whether or not autonomous driving is possible for each candidate route is performed based on the traffic environment information."]-[0044] and [0046 "In the first example, simulation based on the traffic environment information is performed for each candidate route, and a section in which autonomous driving is possible and a section in which autonomous driving is not possible, that is, a section in which assistance of driving by the user is requested are determined."]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Ahn to further include a step of receiving the real-time traffic information from a control server, as taught by Kawano, in order to determine regions where autonomous driving is possible or impossible based on the real-time traffic information received from the control server.
Regarding Claim 2
Modified Ahn teaches the method according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Ahn further teaches wherein the first step is performed to receive wireless communication environment information from each regional base station of the communication company server (see Fig. 10; elements 530-550; [0015 "...receiving, in real time, second data about a communication technology being used by each device of the plurality of V2X devices distributed on the plurality of paths except for the first device and a current position of each device..."], [0224]-[0227] and [0251]-[0255]), and receive at least one or more pieces of wireless communication environment information such as frequency bands that can be used in the region, an amount of communication traffic generated in the region, data transmission and reception reliability, data processing amount, data transmission and reception efficiency, and data transmission and reception signal strength (see [0015], [0026 "The communication technology may include 3G, LTE, and 5G communication standards, as a network communication standard being used by the plurality of V2X devices, and the key performance indicator (KPI) may include transmission/reception signal strength indicator, transmission/reception delay time, a packet reception rate, a range between devices, a range between a device and a network, the number of communication line users, and data for communication line congestion."], [0118] [0225 "The above-described communication environment may be represented as a key performance indicator (KPI), and components constituting the KPI may include all information on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), a transmission power (Tx power), a signal status, latency, reliability, data throughput, a packet reception rate, a communication range, the number of communication line users, and congestion. The information can be quantified and then averaged to indicate the communication environment."]-[0227] and [0251]-[0255]).
Regarding Claim 3
Modified Ahn teaches the method according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Ahn further teaches further comprising, after the first step,
step 1-1 of constructing a wireless communication environment map according to a regional data reception level based on the received wireless communication environment information (see Fig. 13, steps S501-S506; [0015]-[0019 "The analyzing of the first communication environment may further include updating analysis result data obtained by analyzing the first communication environment and start position information of the first device on an electronic map, and the electronic map may include a first electronic map stored in a database included in the server and a second electronic map stored in an external database."], [0224]-[0227 "The server 503 updates the identified 5G communication environment on an electronic map,.."] and [0248]-[0255]);
step 1-2 of performing an autonomous driving test on the wireless communication environment map (see Fig. 13, steps S504-S507; [0254]-[0255 "In addition, the server 503 thirdly analyzes the first communication environment in real time for the entire section of each path, using other devices including the V2X device such as the pedestrian 530, the bicycle 540, and the RSU 550 existing on the calculated path (S506). A result obtained by thirdly analyzing may be fed back to the result obtained by primarily analyzing, may be stored in the database, and may be updated on the electronic map at the same time."] and [0256]); and
step 1-3 of updating the wireless communication environment map by reflecting the result of the test (see Fig. 13, steps S504-S507, especially S504; [0254 "The server 503 stores a result obtained by analyzing the first communication environment in the database (S503), updates the electronic map (S504), and calculates all movable paths from a current position (starting point, P1) of the first vehicle 510 to the destination P2 on the electronic map based on the received information on the destination P2 (S505)."]-[0255 "In addition, the server 503 thirdly analyzes the first communication environment in real time for the entire section of each path, using other devices including the V2X device such as the pedestrian 530, the bicycle 540, and the RSU 550 existing on the calculated path (S506). A result obtained by thirdly analyzing may be fed back to the result obtained by primarily analyzing, may be stored in the database, and may be updated on the electronic map at the same time."]), wherein
steps 1-1 to 1-3 may be performed repeatedly.
Regarding Claim 4
Modified Ahn teaches the method according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Ahn further teaches wherein the fourth step may be performed to set a shortest distance or minimum travel time and distance to the destination as the autonomous driving route (see Fig. 13, step S507; [0014]-[0015 "...providing primarily recommended paths of the plurality of paths in which a numerical value of a result obtained by analyzing the first communication environment is a predetermined numerical value or more, an estimated time of arrival to the destination for each of the primarily recommended paths..."], [0018 "The primarily recommended paths may include at least one of the shortest path and an optimal path ... the shortest path may indicate a path in which a distance from the start position to the destination is shortest."], [0229] and [0256]), and set the autonomous driving route to preferentially include regions where the wireless communication environment information reaches predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle (see Fig. 13, step S507; Figs. 14, all; [0014]-[0015 "...providing primarily recommended paths of the plurality of paths in which a numerical value of a result obtained by analyzing the first communication environment is a predetermined numerical value or more, an estimated time of arrival to the destination for each of the primarily recommended paths ... The first communication environment is represented by converting a key performance indicator (KPI) of a communication technology being used by the first device into a numerical value."], [0017]-[0018], [0229] and [0256]-[0257]).
Kawano additionally teaches wherein the fourth step may be performed to set minimum travel time to the destination as the autonomous driving route (see Figs. 4A-4B, Route 1; [0046]-[0048 "When the route 1 is selected, the vehicle can arrive at the destination in a shorter time than when the route 2 is selected."]), and set the autonomous driving route to preferentially include regions where the real-time traffic information reaches predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle (see Figs. 4A-4B, all; [0007]-[0008], [0039 "Therefore, depending on the traffic environment encountered during autonomous driving, the reliability of autonomous driving using the trained model may decrease, and a situation may occur in which the user is forced to perform manual driving."], [0043 "In the trained model 25, a simulation for determining whether or not autonomous driving is possible for each candidate route is performed based on the traffic environment information."]-[0044] and [0046 "In the first example, simulation based on the traffic environment information is performed for each candidate route, and a section in which autonomous driving is possible and a section in which autonomous driving is not possible, that is, a section in which assistance of driving by the user is requested are determined.']-[0049]).
Regarding Claim 5
Modified Ahn teaches the method according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Ahn further teaches further comprising, after the fourth step, step 4-1 of confirming whether the wireless communication environment information of each region within the set autonomous driving route reaches predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle (see Fig. 13, steps S505-S507; Fig. 14, all; [0014]-[0015 "...providing primarily recommended paths of the plurality of paths in which a numerical value of a result obtained by analyzing the first communication environment is a predetermined numerical value or more, an estimated time of arrival to the destination for each of the primarily recommended paths, and an driving mode corresponding to each primarily recommended path to the first device, and receiving, from the first device, first user information including a path selected by a user and a driving mode corresponding to the selected path. The first communication environment is represented by converting a key performance indicator (KPI) of a communication technology being used by the first device into a numerical value."], [0017]-[0018], [0227]-[0229], [0248], [0254]-[0257 "For example, as shown in FIG. 14, the server 503 calculates, as the optimal path R1, a path on which the first vehicle 510 can perform the 5G communication at a level or more satisfying performance requirements based on 3GPP 22.816 through the first device using the result obtained by thirdly analyzing the first communication environment..."] and [0259 "The server 503 calculates the optimal path R1 based on the result obtained by analyzing the communication environment in this way. In the present invention, the optimal path means a path optimal to perform the autonomous driving based on a road traffic condition and a communication situation for the communication technology being used by the first device..."]).
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Ahn teaches the method according to claim 5 (as discussed above in claim 5),
Ahn further teaches further comprising, after step 4-1, step 4-2 of re-setting, when a region that does not reach the predetermined criteria is included in the set autonomous driving route, the autonomous driving route to include, instead of the region, other regions that reach the predetermined criteria without going out of the autonomous driving route more than a predetermined range (see Fig. 13, steps S505 and S507; Fig. 14, route R1; [0014]-[0015 "...providing primarily recommended paths of the plurality of paths in which a numerical value of a result obtained by analyzing the first communication environment is a predetermined numerical value or more ..."], [0017]-[0018], [0227]-[0229], [0248], [0254]-[0257 "For example, as shown in FIG. 14, the server 503 calculates, as the optimal path R1, a path on which the first vehicle 510 can perform the 5G communication at a level or more satisfying performance requirements based on 3GPP 22.816 through the first device using the result obtained by thirdly analyzing the first communication environment..."] and [0259]).
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Ahn teaches the method according to claim 5 (as discussed above in claim 5),
Ahn further teaches further comprising, after step 4-1, step 4-3 of re-setting, when a region that does not reach the predetermined criteria is included in the set autonomous driving route, the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle in the corresponding region (see Fig. 13, step S506; Fig. 14," manual driving"; [0015]-[0018], [0242] and [0258 "However, another section A2 provides the communication environment in which the autonomous driving is not easily performed, and thus, the shortest path R2 includes a section in which the manual driving should be performed. Accordingly, other driving modes (for example, the autonomous driving in the A1 section, and the manual driving mode in the A2 section) may be recommended for each of the sections A1 and A2."]).
Kawano additionally teaches further comprising, after step 4-1, step 4-3 of re-setting, when a region that does not reach the predetermined criteria is included in the set autonomous driving route, the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle in the corresponding region (see Figs. 4A-4B, Autonomous driving impossible; [0007]-[0008], [0039 "Therefore, depending on the traffic environment encountered during autonomous driving, the reliability of autonomous driving using the trained model may decrease, and a situation may occur in which the user is forced to perform manual driving."], [0043 "In the trained model 25, a simulation for determining whether or not autonomous driving is possible for each candidate route is performed based on the traffic environment information."]-[0044] and [0046 "In the first example, simulation based on the traffic environment information is performed for each candidate route, and a section in which autonomous driving is possible and a section in which autonomous driving is not possible, that is, a section in which assistance of driving by the user is requested are determined.']-[0049]).
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Ahn teaches the method according to claim 7 (as discussed above in claim 7),
Ahn further teaches wherein step 4-3 is performed in a manner of releasing all or part of the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle so that data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle may be collected from the vehicle (see Fig. 13, step S506; Fig. 14," manual driving"; [0015]-[0018], [0242] and [0258 "However, another section A2 provides the communication environment in which the autonomous driving is not easily performed, and thus, the shortest path R2 includes a section in which the manual driving should be performed. Accordingly, other driving modes (for example, the autonomous driving in the A1 section, and the manual driving mode in the A2 section) may be recommended for each of the sections A1 and A2."]).
Regarding Claim 10
Modified Ahn teaches the method according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Ahn further teaches further comprising, after the fourth step,
a fifth step of receiving driving information of a vehicle driven along the set autonomous driving route (see Fig. 16, steps S511-S514; [0021 "The method may further include, after the receiving of the first user information, receiving a current position of the first device and third data for the first communication environment at the current position of the first device, in real time from the first device, checking the second data being received in real time, and reanalyzing, based on the checked second data and third data, a section including the current position of the first device and a first communication environment for a next section to which the first device moves, in a path primarily selected by the user."], [0231]-[0232] and [0275]-[0279]);
a sixth step of storing the driving information of the vehicle to be mapped to regional wireless communication environment information (see Fig. 16, step S513; [0277 "The server 503 can compare information on the first communication environment at the received current position P3 of the first device with the first communication environment information being received in real time from the second to fifth devices distributed on the path and check these (S512). In addition, the server 503 can store information on the first communication environment transmitted from the first device in real time in the database (S513)."]); and
a seventh step of setting predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle on the basis of the stored information (see Fig. 16, steps S515-S521; [0279]-[0281 "For example, the server 503 analyzes the LTE communication environments in the B1 and B2 sections, and as a result, when the LTE communication environments in the B1 and B2 sections satisfy or exceed the performance requirements based on the 3GPP 22.816 (S515), the server 503 can calculate the alternative paths communicable with the 5G communication technology which is the communication technology higher than the LTE (S516)."]), wherein
the fifth to seventh steps may be performed repeatedly.
Regarding Claim 11
Ahn teaches a device for setting an autonomous driving route using wireless communication environment information for a vehicle capable of driving in an autonomous driving mode (see all Figs.; [0014]-[0015]), the device comprising:
a data receiving unit for receiving regional wireless communication environment information from a communication company server (see Figs. 10-11, all; Fig. 13, steps S501-S502; [0015 "The method includes receiving first data about a communication technology being used by a first device of a plurality of V2X devices and a start position of the first device transmitted from the first device such that a server for determining a driving mode and a path considering the communication environment determines the driving mode and path, calculating a plurality of paths of the first device to a destination, receiving, in real time, second data about a communication technology being used by each device of the plurality of V2X devices distributed on the plurality of paths except for the first device and a current position of each device, analyzing a first communication environment over the entire section for each of the plurality of paths using the second data..."], [0224]-[0227] and [0248]-[0253]) and receiving real-time traffic information (see [0004] and [0259 "The server 503 calculates the optimal path R1 based on the result obtained by analyzing the communication environment in this way. In the present invention, the optimal path means a path optimal to perform the autonomous driving based on a road traffic condition and a communication situation for the communication technology being used by the first device, and here, the autonomous driving includes remote driving, cluster driving, and autonomous driving in which the first vehicle 510 self-drives without intervention of the user."]);
a route setting unit for setting an autonomous driving route from the current location of a user or a starting point input by the user to a destination input by the user by reflecting the wireless communication environment information and the real-time traffic information (see Fig. 13, steps S505-S507; Fig. 14, all; [0004], [0014]-[0015 "...providing primarily recommended paths of the plurality of paths in which a numerical value of a result obtained by analyzing the first communication environment is a predetermined numerical value or more, an estimated time of arrival to the destination for each of the primarily recommended paths, and an driving mode corresponding to each primarily recommended path to the first device, and receiving, from the first device, first user information including a path selected by a user and a driving mode corresponding to the selected path. The first communication environment is represented by converting a key performance indicator (KPI) of a communication technology being used by the first device into a numerical value."], [0017]-[0018], [0227]-[0229], [0248], [0254]-[0257] and [0259 "The server 503 calculates the optimal path R1 based on the result obtained by analyzing the communication environment in this way. In the present invention, the optimal path means a path optimal to perform the autonomous driving based on a road traffic condition and a communication situation for the communication technology being used by the first device..."]); and
a memory unit for storing driving information of a vehicle driven along the autonomous driving route (see Fig. 13, steps S503 and S510; [0019]-[0020], [0254], [0272 "...the first device transmits information on the selected path and the selected driving mode to the server 503 (S605), and the server 503 can store the path and driving mode selected by the user in the database 5034 in log (S510)."]] and [0292]), wherein
the route setting unit sets the shortest distance or minimum travel time and distance to the destination as the autonomous driving route (see Fig. 13, step S507; [0014]-[0015 "...providing primarily recommended paths of the plurality of paths in which a numerical value of a result obtained by analyzing the first communication environment is a predetermined numerical value or more, an estimated time of arrival to the destination for each of the primarily recommended paths..."], [0018 "The primarily recommended paths may include at least one of the shortest path and an optimal path ... the shortest path may indicate a path in which a distance from the start position to the destination is shortest."], [0229] and [0256]), and sets the autonomous driving route to preferentially include regions where the wireless communication environment information reaches predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle (see Fig. 13, step S507; Figs. 14, all; [0014]-[0015 "...providing primarily recommended paths of the plurality of paths in which a numerical value of a result obtained by analyzing the first communication environment is a predetermined numerical value or more, an estimated time of arrival to the destination for each of the primarily recommended paths ... The first communication environment is represented by converting a key performance indicator (KPI) of a communication technology being used by the first device into a numerical value."], [0017]-[0018], [0229] and [0256]-[0257]).
Although it may be inherent and/or implied, Ahn does not explicitly teach receiving the real-time traffic information from a control server.
Kawano teaches a device for setting an autonomous driving route for a vehicle capable of driving in an autonomous driving mode (see all Figs.; [0007]), the device comprising:
a data receiving unit for receiving real-time traffic information from a control server (see [0007], [0037]-[0038 "The management server 200 is an external device that is present outside the vehicle 1. The management server 200 communicates with one or more vehicles 1 via a communication network. The management server 200 includes a database 220. The database 220 stores a part or all of the traffic environment information required by the vehicle 1. The traffic environment information stored in the database 220 includes information of the in-vehicle sensor uploaded from one or a plurality of vehicles 1. The processor 110 of the vehicle 1 can download necessary information from the traffic environment information stored in the database 220 to the traffic environment information storage area 150 by accessing the management server 200."] and [0042 "Some of the traffic environment information can be acquired by the in-vehicle device of the vehicle 1, and some of the traffic environment information can be acquired from the management server 200."] and [0042]);
a route setting unit for setting an autonomous driving route from the current location of a user or a starting point input by the user to a destination input by the user by reflecting the real-time traffic information (see Figs. 4A-4B, all; [0007]-[0008], [0039], [0043 "In the trained model 25, a simulation for determining whether or not autonomous driving is possible for each candidate route is performed based on the traffic environment information."]-[0044] and [0046 "In the first example, simulation based on the traffic environment information is performed for each candidate route, and a section in which autonomous driving is possible and a section in which autonomous driving is not possible, that is, a section in which assistance of driving by the user is requested are determined."]-[0049]); and
a memory unit for storing driving information of a vehicle driven along the autonomous driving route (see Fig. 2, memory 120; [0034]-[0037]), wherein
the route setting unit sets the minimum travel time to the destination as the autonomous driving route (see Figs. 4A-4B, Route 1; [0046]-[0048 "When the route 1 is selected, the vehicle can arrive at the destination in a shorter time than when the route 2 is selected."]), and sets the autonomous driving route to preferentially include regions where the real-time traffic information reaches predetermined criteria for reliably receiving data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle (see Figs. 4A-4B, all; [0007]-[0008], [0039 "Therefore, depending on the traffic environment encountered during autonomous driving, the reliability of autonomous driving using the trained model may decrease, and a situation may occur in which the user is forced to perform manual driving."], [0043 "In the trained model 25, a simulation for determining whether or not autonomous driving is possible for each candidate route is performed based on the traffic environment information."]-[0044] and [0046 "In the first example, simulation based on the traffic environment information is performed for each candidate route, and a section in which autonomous driving is possible and a section in which autonomous driving is not possible, that is, a section in which assistance of driving by the user is requested are determined.']-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ahn to further include instructions for receiving the real-time traffic information from a control server, as taught by Kawano, in order to determine regions where autonomous driving is possible or impossible based on the real-time traffic information received from the control server.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (as modified by Kawano as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ramezani et al. (US 10394243 B1 and Ramezani hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Ahn teaches the method according to claim 8 (as discussed above in claim 8),
Ahn further teaches collect the data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle using at least one or more among information collected from at least one or more among a camera, a sensor, and an array antenna provided in the vehicle and information already stored in the vehicle (see [0152 "The object detection device 210 may include at least one sensor which can detect objects outside the vehicle 10. The object detection device 210 may include at least one of a camera, a radar, a lidar, an ultrasonic sensor and an infrared sensor. The object detection device 210 can provide data about an object generated on the basis of a sensing signal generated from a sensor to at least one electronic device included in the vehicle."]-[0158]).
Ahn is silent regarding wherein step 4-3 is performed to autonomously determine the data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle according to a result of artificial intelligence learning performed in advance.
Ramezani teaches a method of setting an autonomous driving route for a vehicle capable of driving in an autonomous driving mode (see all Figs.; Abstract; Col. 1, lines 49-67), the method comprising:
a fourth step of setting an autonomous driving route from a current location of the user or a starting point input by the user to the destination (see Abstract "A computing system may generate, based on a set of signals descriptive of a current state of an environment in which the autonomous vehicle is operating, a normal path plan separate from a safe path plan, or a hybrid path plan including a normal path plan and a safe path plan. In generating the safe path plan, the computing system may generate and concatenate a set of motion primitives."; Col. 1, lines 49-67);
further comprising, after step 4-1, step 4-3 of re-setting, when a region that does not reach the predetermined criteria is included in the set autonomous driving route, the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle in the corresponding region (see Fig. 10, steps S1020-S1030; Col 28, line 37 - Col. 29, line 25, especially "In another embodiment, a fault condition may occur when the computing device accesses an additional set of signals descriptive of an updated current state of the environment in which the autonomous vehicle is operating, and determines that the additional set of signals is insufficient to generate an updated normal path plan and an updated safe path plan ... If a fault condition does occur (“YES”), the computing device may cause (block 1025) the autonomous vehicle to follow the safe path plan. In particular, the computing device may cease causing the autonomous vehicle to follow the first portion of the normal path plan and, and then cause the autonomous vehicle to follow the safe path plan. In an embodiment, the computing device may cause the autonomous vehicle to follow the safe path plan immediately upon detecting the fault condition or at an expiration of the predetermined initial portion of the first time period.");
wherein step 4-3 is performed in a manner of releasing all or part of the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle so that data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle may be collected from the vehicle (see Fig. 10, steps S1025-S1030; Col. 29, lines 6-25, especially "If a fault condition does occur (“YES”), the computing device may cause (block 1025) the autonomous vehicle to follow the safe path plan. In particular, the computing device may cease causing the autonomous vehicle to follow the first portion of the normal path plan and, and then cause the autonomous vehicle to follow the safe path plan. In an embodiment, the computing device may cause the autonomous vehicle to follow the safe path plan immediately upon detecting the fault condition or at an expiration of the predetermined initial portion of the first time period.");
wherein step 4-3 is performed to autonomously determine the data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle according to a result of artificial intelligence learning performed in advance (see Fig. 1, Perception Component 104 and Prediction component 120; Col. 8, line 9 - Col. 9, line 49, especially "Moreover, and also similar to the segmentation module 110 and the classification module 112, the tracking module 114 may execute predetermined rules or algorithms to track objects, may use a neural network that has been trained to track identified (and possibly classified) objects within the environment (e.g., using supervised learning with manually generated labels for different pairs or sets of point cloud frames, etc.), or another suitable machine learning model to track objects ... The prediction component 120 may inherently account for such behaviors by utilizing a neural network or other suitable machine learning model, for example. In some embodiments, the prediction component 120 may be omitted from the SDCA 100 (e.g., if the vehicle does not perform any prediction of future environment states)."]; Col. 10, line 64 - Col. 11, line 13, "In the separate path plan implementation as discussed herein, the normal path plan generator 145 and the safe path plan generator 146 may generate, based on any combination of the perception signals 106, the prediction signals 122, and the mapping and navigation signals 132, a normal path plan and a safe path plan, respectively."), and collect the data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle using at least one or more among information collected from at least one or more among a camera, a sensor, and an array antenna provided in the vehicle and information already stored in the vehicle (see Fig. 1, Sensor(s) and Perception Component 104; Col. 7, line 9-49, especially "As seen in FIG. 1, the vehicle includes N different sensors 102, with N being any suitable integer (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 20, etc.). At least “Sensor 1” of the sensors 102 is configured to sense the environment of the autonomous vehicle by physically interacting with the environment in some way, such as transmitting and receiving laser beams that reflect off of objects in the environment (e.g., if the sensor is a lidar device), transmitting and receiving acoustic signals that reflect off of objects in the environment (e.g., if the sensor is a radar device), simply receiving light waves generated or reflected from different areas of the environment (e.g., if the sensor is a camera), and so on.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the process of modified Ahn to include a step of autonomously determining the data required for autonomous driving of the vehicle according to a result of artificial intelligence learning performed in advance, as taught by Ramezani, in order to facilitate classifying and tracking of objects sensed by the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANNER LUKE CULLEN whose telephone number is (303)297-4384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 MT.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/TANNER L CULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights