Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1-7 are pending for examination.
This Action is made NON-FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested MOVING OBJECT CONTROL SYSTEM, MOVING OBJECT, CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM CAPABLE OF CAUSING THE MOVING OBJECT TO TRAVEL IN CONSIDERATION OF PERIPHERAL SITUATIONS.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “highly public facility” and “not highly public” in claim 1, 6, and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “highly public facility” and “not highly public” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what is considered a highly public or even public. For example would a mall be considered highly public? Would a park be considered highly public?
Claims 2-3 and 5 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 4 cures the deficiencies of claim 1 by explicitly stating that a highly public facility is limited to a school, a cram school, or a station, and that a facility that is not highly public is limited to a private house.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-7 are directed to an apparatus and method. Therefore, claim(s) 1-7 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 6-7 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A moving object control system, comprising:
a storage device configured to store instructions; and
one or more processors,
wherein the one or more processors executes the instructions stored in the storage device to:
determine whether or not an element selected based on the type of a specific location among a plurality of elements satisfies a criterion defined for each element, and
determine whether a stop position of the moving object is in a sidewalk region near the specific location or in another region different from the sidewalk region on the basis of the result of determination,
wherein the plurality of elements include the sidewalk near the specific location or a congestion status near the sidewalk, and other elements different from the congestion status,
wherein, in a case where the specific location is a highly public facility, determine whether or not the other elements satisfy the criterion, and
wherein, in a case where the specific location is not a highly public facility, determine whether or not the congestion status satisfy the criterion.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a mental process because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a human can determine what attributes are relevant to a specific location and criteria for assessing those attributes and then assess those attributes based on the criteria. A human can determine where a vehicle should stop based the assessment (stopping where it is less crowded or where parking is not prohibited). A human can base the assessment oh how public the stopping area is. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A moving object control system, comprising:
a storage device configured to store instructions; and
one or more processors,
wherein the one or more processors executes the instructions stored in the storage device to:
determine whether or not an element selected based on the type of a specific location among a plurality of elements satisfies a criterion defined for each element, and
determine whether a stop position of the moving object is in a sidewalk region near the specific location or in another region different from the sidewalk region on the basis of the result of determination,
wherein the plurality of elements include the sidewalk near the specific location or a congestion status near the sidewalk, and other elements different from the congestion status,
wherein, in a case where the specific location is a highly public facility, determine whether or not the other elements satisfy the criterion, and
wherein, in a case where the specific location is not a highly public facility, determine whether or not the congestion status satisfy the criterion.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “A moving object control system, comprising: a storage device configured to store instructions; and one or more processors,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The “control system” comprising a “processor” and “storage” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim # does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “A moving object control system, comprising: a storage device configured to store instructions; and one or more processors” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-4 merely elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 5 merely claims that a moving body possess the control system and is not claimed to act in anyway based on the control system, and therefore can be considered generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment thus does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-7 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, and 13 of US Patent US 12164300 B2 in view of Limaye (US 20220097734 A1).
Table has been created below to compare claims of the instant application and claims of the copending application side by side.
Instant Application 18/945618
US Patent US 12164300 B2
1. A moving object control system, comprising: a storage device configured to store instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors executes the instructions stored in the storage device to: determine whether or not an element selected based on the type of a specific location among a plurality of elements satisfies a criterion defined for each element, and determine whether a stop position of the moving object is in a sidewalk region near the specific location or in another region different from the sidewalk region on the basis of the result of determination, wherein the plurality of elements include the sidewalk near the specific location or a congestion status near the sidewalk, and other elements different from the congestion status, wherein, in a case where the specific location is a highly public facility, determine whether or not the other elements satisfy the criterion, and wherein, in a case where the specific location is not a highly public facility, determine whether or not the congestion status satisfy the criterion.
1. A moving object control system comprising: a storage device configured to store instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors executes the instructions stored in the storage device to: determine whether or not an element selected on a basis of a priority based on the type of a specific location near a sidewalk among a plurality of elements satisfies a criterion defined for each element, and determine whether or not the sidewalk is to be included in a route of a moving object on a basis of a result of determination of whether or not the element satisfies the criterion, cause the moving object to move on the basis of a route determined by the one or more processor, wherein the plurality of elements include the sidewalk near the specific location or a congestion status near the sidewalk, and other elements different from the congestion status, wherein, in a case where the specific location is a highly public facility, the priority of the other elements is higher than the priority of the congestion status, and wherein, in a case where the specific location is not a highly public facility, the priority of the congestion status is higher than the priority of the other elements.
US Patent US 12164300 B2 does not teach determine whether a stop position of the moving object is in a sidewalk region near the specific location or in another region different from the sidewalk region on the basis of the result of determination
However Limaye teaches determine whether a stop position of the moving object is in a sidewalk region near the specific location or in another region different from the sidewalk region on the basis of the result of determination (para [0066-0067] “s shown in FIG. 8, the following candidate locations may be identified: a first candidate location 804 on sidewalk 240 along road 208, the first candidate location 804 being closer to the client computing device's current location than the received pickup location; a second candidate location 806 on sidewalk 240 along road 208 next to traffic signal light pole 226, the second candidate location 806 being on the other side of the intersection 204 than the client's computing device's current location and being closer to the received pickup location than the current location; and a third candidate location 808 on the raised curb area 802 closer to the road 208 than sidewalk 240, the third candidate location being closer to the received pickup location than the current location.
The specified location may be selected from the identified one or more candidate locations. The selection of the specified location may factor in one or more pickup conditions, such as safety to the user to be picked up, accessibility to the user, accessibility to the vehicle, and/or ease of identification using semantic information. For example, the one or more pickup conditions may include being safe from traffic and other possible hazards, accessible to the user, being accessible to the vehicle within a threshold distance, and having at least one semantic marker in its vicinity that is both visible to the user and detectable by the vehicle. The one or more pickup conditions may also include having a fewer number of people is predicted to be located based on foot traffic or other pedestrian behavior in order to prevent confusion regarding who is the user to be picked up. In another example, the one or more conditions also includes allowing for an earlier pickup time or a faster pickup experience. A plurality of candidate locations may be identified as satisfying at least one of the conditions, in which case the candidate location that satisfies a highest number of the conditions or best satisfies the plurality of conditions may be selected as the specified location. For a condition such as accessibility to a candidate location, a candidate location that is closer to where a vehicle can park or where a passenger may safely wait can be determined to better satisfy the condition.”)
2. The moving object control system according to claim 1, wherein the other elements include one or more elements of time, a day of the week, and weather.
3. The moving object control system according to claim 2, wherein the other elements include one or more elements of time, a day of the week, and weather.
3. The moving object control system according to claim 1, wherein the other elements is set on the basis of an attribute of a user of the moving object.
5. The moving object control system according to claim 1, wherein the criterion for each element is set on the basis of an attribute of a user of the moving object.
4. The moving object control system according to claim 1, wherein the highly public facility is a school, a cram school, or a station, and wherein the facility that is not highly public is a private house.
8. The moving object control system according to claim 1, wherein the highly public facility is a school, a cram school, or a station, and wherein the facility that is not highly public is a private house.
5. A moving object equipped with the moving object control system according to claim 1.
13. A moving object equipped with the moving object control system according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, it recites A method having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 7, it recites A non-transitory computer storage medium storing a program having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed to a moving object, a control method, and a storage medium capable of causing the moving object to travel in consideration of peripheral situations. Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected based on Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, and 13 of US Patent US 12164300 B2. Minor differences can be seen and noted in the table above, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of US Patent US 12164300 B2 in view of Limaye to produce the moving object control system, moving object, control method, and storage medium of the instant application because it can improve accessibility and safety of a user as discussed in para [0067-0068].
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limaye (US 20220097734 A1) in view of Korjus et al. (US 20210397187 A1, hereinafter known as Korjus).
Regarding Claim 1, Limaye teaches A moving object control system, comprising:
a storage device configured to store instructions; and
one or more processors,
wherein the one or more processors executes the instructions stored in the storage device to:
{Para [0035] “Computing device 110 may all of the components normally used in connection with a computing device such as the processor and memory described above as well as a user input 150 (e.g., a mouse, keyboard, touch screen and/or microphone) and various electronic displays (e.g., a monitor having a screen or any other electrical device that is operable to display information). In this example, the vehicle includes an internal electronic display 152 as well as one or more speakers 154 to provide information or audio-visual experiences. In this regard, internal electronic display 152 may be located within a cabin of vehicle 100 and may be used by computing device 110 to provide information to passengers within the vehicle 100. In addition to internal speakers, the one or more speakers 154 may include external speakers that are arranged at various locations on the vehicle in order to provide audible notifications to objects external to the vehicle 100. The vehicle also may include one or more wireless network connections 156 configured to communicate wirelessly over a network to remote computing devices.”
}
determine whether or not an element
{Para [0067] “The specified location may be selected from the identified one or more candidate locations. The selection of the specified location may factor in one or more pickup conditions, such as safety to the user to be picked up, accessibility to the user, accessibility to the vehicle, and/or ease of identification using semantic information. For example, the one or more pickup conditions may include being safe from traffic and other possible hazards, accessible to the user, being accessible to the vehicle within a threshold distance, and having at least one semantic marker in its vicinity that is both visible to the user and detectable by the vehicle. The one or more pickup conditions may also include having a fewer number of people is predicted to be located based on foot traffic or other pedestrian behavior in order to prevent confusion regarding who is the user to be picked up. In another example, the one or more conditions also includes allowing for an earlier pickup time or a faster pickup experience. A plurality of candidate locations may be identified as satisfying at least one of the conditions, in which case the candidate location that satisfies a highest number of the conditions or best satisfies the plurality of conditions may be selected as the specified location. For a condition such as accessibility to a candidate location, a candidate location that is closer to where a vehicle can park or where a passenger may safely wait can be determined to better satisfy the condition.”
}
determine whether a stop position of the moving object is in a sidewalk region near the specific location or in another region different from the sidewalk region on the basis of the result of determination,
{Para [0066] “As shown in FIG. 8, the following candidate locations may be identified: a first candidate location 804 on sidewalk 240 along road 208, the first candidate location 804 being closer to the client computing device's current location than the received pickup location; a second candidate location 806 on sidewalk 240 along road 208 next to traffic signal light pole 226, the second candidate location 806 being on the other side of the intersection 204 than the client's computing device's current location and being closer to the received pickup location than the current location; and a third candidate location 808 on the raised curb area 802 closer to the road 208 than sidewalk 240, the third candidate location being closer to the received pickup location than the current location.”
Para [0067] “The specified location may be selected from the identified one or more candidate locations. The selection of the specified location may factor in one or more pickup conditions, such as safety to the user to be picked up, accessibility to the user, accessibility to the vehicle, and/or ease of identification using semantic information. For example, the one or more pickup conditions may include being safe from traffic and other possible hazards, accessible to the user, being accessible to the vehicle within a threshold distance, and having at least one semantic marker in its vicinity that is both visible to the user and detectable by the vehicle. The one or more pickup conditions may also include having a fewer number of people is predicted to be located based on foot traffic or other pedestrian behavior in order to prevent confusion regarding who is the user to be picked up. In another example, the one or more conditions also includes allowing for an earlier pickup time or a faster pickup experience. A plurality of candidate locations may be identified as satisfying at least one of the conditions, in which case the candidate location that satisfies a highest number of the conditions or best satisfies the plurality of conditions may be selected as the specified location. For a condition such as accessibility to a candidate location, a candidate location that is closer to where a vehicle can park or where a passenger may safely wait can be determined to better satisfy the condition.”
}
wherein the plurality of elements include the sidewalk near the specific location or a congestion status near the sidewalk, and other elements different from the congestion status,
{Para [0067] “The specified location may be selected from the identified one or more candidate locations. The selection of the specified location may factor in one or more pickup conditions, such as safety to the user to be picked up, accessibility to the user, accessibility to the vehicle, and/or ease of identification using semantic information. For example, the one or more pickup conditions may include being safe from traffic and other possible hazards, accessible to the user, being accessible to the vehicle within a threshold distance, and having at least one semantic marker in its vicinity that is both visible to the user and detectable by the vehicle. The one or more pickup conditions may also include having a fewer number of people is predicted to be located based on foot traffic or other pedestrian behavior in order to prevent confusion regarding who is the user to be picked up. In another example, the one or more conditions also includes allowing for an earlier pickup time or a faster pickup experience. A plurality of candidate locations may be identified as satisfying at least one of the conditions, in which case the candidate location that satisfies a highest number of the conditions or best satisfies the plurality of conditions may be selected as the specified location. For a condition such as accessibility to a candidate location, a candidate location that is closer to where a vehicle can park or where a passenger may safely wait can be determined to better satisfy the condition.”
}
wherein, in a case where the specific location is a highly public facility, determine whether or not the other elements satisfy the criterion, and
wherein, in a case where the specific location is not a highly public facility, determine whether or not the congestion status satisfy the criterion.
{Para [0066] “As shown in FIG. 8, the following candidate locations may be identified: a first candidate location 804 on sidewalk 240 along road 208, the first candidate location 804 being closer to the client computing device's current location than the received pickup location; a second candidate location 806 on sidewalk 240 along road 208 next to traffic signal light pole 226, the second candidate location 806 being on the other side of the intersection 204 than the client's computing device's current location and being closer to the received pickup location than the current location; and a third candidate location 808 on the raised curb area 802 closer to the road 208 than sidewalk 240, the third candidate location being closer to the received pickup location than the current location.”
Para [0067] “The specified location may be selected from the identified one or more candidate locations. The selection of the specified location may factor in one or more pickup conditions, such as safety to the user to be picked up, accessibility to the user, accessibility to the vehicle, and/or ease of identification using semantic information. For example, the one or more pickup conditions may include being safe from traffic and other possible hazards, accessible to the user, being accessible to the vehicle within a threshold distance, and having at least one semantic marker in its vicinity that is both visible to the user and detectable by the vehicle. The one or more pickup conditions may also include having a fewer number of people is predicted to be located based on foot traffic or other pedestrian behavior in order to prevent confusion regarding who is the user to be picked up. In another example, the one or more conditions also includes allowing for an earlier pickup time or a faster pickup experience. A plurality of candidate locations may be identified as satisfying at least one of the conditions, in which case the candidate location that satisfies a highest number of the conditions or best satisfies the plurality of conditions may be selected as the specified location. For a condition such as accessibility to a candidate location, a candidate location that is closer to where a vehicle can park or where a passenger may safely wait can be determined to better satisfy the condition.”
As worded under broadest reasonable interpretation both a “highly public facility” and “not a highly public facility” may considered both “whether or not the other elements satisfy the criterion” and “whether or not the congestion status satisfy the criterion”.
The condition of less foot traffic (congestion) and the numerous other conditions (other elements) apply to all locations whether they be highly public or not and thus read on the claim limitation.
Applicant has not claimed what not to determine.
}
Limaye does not teach, an element selected based on the type of a specific location.
However, Korjus teaches an element selected based on the type of a specific location
{Para [0256] “The threshold parameters 60 can comprise static environment parameters 60, which indicate the type of environment wherein an object can be detected. For example, the static environment parameters 60 can indicate whether the environment comprises a road, road crossing, sidewalk, driveway. It can further indicate, when the environment comprises a road, the type of the road, lanes of the road, heaviness of the traffic on the road. It can also indicate, when the environment comprises a road crossing, the type of crossing, e.g. a driveway crossing, railway crossing, car-road crossing. It can further comprise information related to traffic laws, e.g. speed limits, presence of traffic lights, direction of one-way or multi-way roads. Generally, the static environment parameters 60 can comprise data related to an environment that do not change frequently or that do not require frequent updates (such as daily or hourly updates). Thus, the static environment parameters 60 can be stored in a memory location (such as, at the server 50, see FIG. 1) and can be accessed when needed to evaluate an environment. The detection threshold 43 can be adjusted based on such static environment parameters. For example, more sensitive thresholds 43 can be selected when crossing a road compared to the instances when driving in a sidewalk. Similarly, the detection thresholds 43 may be adjusted to more sensitive values in roads with high average traffic.”
}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Limaye to incorporate the teachings of Korjus to select elements based on specific location because some elements may not be applicable if they are a sub-element of an element not present at the location.
Regarding Claim 2, Limaye in view of Korjus teaches The moving object control system according to claim 1. Limaye further teaches wherein the other elements include one or more elements of time, a day of the week, and weather.
{Para [0067] “The specified location may be selected from the identified one or more candidate locations. The selection of the specified location may factor in one or more pickup conditions, such as safety to the user to be picked up, accessibility to the user, accessibility to the vehicle, and/or ease of identification using semantic information. For example, the one or more pickup conditions may include being safe from traffic and other possible hazards, accessible to the user, being accessible to the vehicle within a threshold distance, and having at least one semantic marker in its vicinity that is both visible to the user and detectable by the vehicle. The one or more pickup conditions may also include having a fewer number of people is predicted to be located based on foot traffic or other pedestrian behavior in order to prevent confusion regarding who is the user to be picked up. In another example, the one or more conditions also includes allowing for an earlier pickup time or a faster pickup experience. A plurality of candidate locations may be identified as satisfying at least one of the conditions, in which case the candidate location that satisfies a highest number of the conditions or best satisfies the plurality of conditions may be selected as the specified location. For a condition such as accessibility to a candidate location, a candidate location that is closer to where a vehicle can park or where a passenger may safely wait can be determined to better satisfy the condition.”
The element of time has not be detailed in the claim and thus any element relating to time can be considered as an element of time.
}
Korjus also teaches wherein the other elements include one or more elements of time, a day of the week, and weather.
{Para [0258-0259] “The threshold parameters 60 can comprise a detection time 60. The detection time 60 can comprise a time of the day (e.g. hour), day of week, holiday, rush hour. The detection time 60 can allow an estimation on the expected traffic, e.g. on rush hours on a working day, an increased number of traffic participants can be expected. Thus, the detection threshold 43 can be adjusted accordingly based on detection time 60, e.g., during rush hours more sensitive thresholds 43 can be used.
The threshold parameters 60 can comprise weather parameters 60, such as, rainy, foggy, windy, snowy—conditions which can interfere with the sensors 32 of the detector apparatus 30 (see FIG. 3). For example, fog may decrease the visibility of cameras 32, hence more sensitive thresholds 43 may be required to ensure detection of objects.”
}
Regarding Claim 3, Limaye in view of Korjus teaches The moving object control system according to claim 1. Limaye further teaches wherein the other elements is set on the basis of an attribute of a user of the moving object.
{Para [0067] “The specified location may be selected from the identified one or more candidate locations. The selection of the specified location may factor in one or more pickup conditions, such as safety to the user to be picked up, accessibility to the user, accessibility to the vehicle, and/or ease of identification using semantic information. For example, the one or more pickup conditions may include being safe from traffic and other possible hazards, accessible to the user, being accessible to the vehicle within a threshold distance, and having at least one semantic marker in its vicinity that is both visible to the user and detectable by the vehicle. The one or more pickup conditions may also include having a fewer number of people is predicted to be located based on foot traffic or other pedestrian behavior in order to prevent confusion regarding who is the user to be picked up. In another example, the one or more conditions also includes allowing for an earlier pickup time or a faster pickup experience. A plurality of candidate locations may be identified as satisfying at least one of the conditions, in which case the candidate location that satisfies a highest number of the conditions or best satisfies the plurality of conditions may be selected as the specified location. For a condition such as accessibility to a candidate location, a candidate location that is closer to where a vehicle can park or where a passenger may safely wait can be determined to better satisfy the condition.”
Accessibility to the user can be considered as a condition based on an attribute of a user. The attribute of the user being there ability to traverse to a type of location.
Additionally in para [0070] “The client computing device 420 may send confirmation 904 of the specified location based on user input from the user. Alternatively, the client computing device 420 may send a request for a different specified location based on user input. The request for a different specified location may include an updated pickup location and/or updated semantic information. In response to the request for a different specified location, the process of determining a specified location may be performed as described above using the updated information.”
Where the attribute of the user can be considered the user’s preference.
}
Regarding Claim 5, Limaye in view of Korjus teaches The moving object control system according to claim 1. Limaye further teaches A moving object equipped with the moving object control system
{Abstract “A control system for an autonomous vehicle is configured to pick up a passenger at a pickup location. The autonomous vehicle includes a self-driving system and one or more computing devices in communication with the self-driving system. The one or more computing devices are configured to receive a trip request including a pickup location and a destination location, the trip request being associated with a client device; cause the self-driving system to navigate the autonomous vehicle to the pickup location; send a prompt to the client device to collect semantic information; determine a specified location based on the semantic information received in response to the prompt; identify one or more semantic markers for the specified location from the semantic information; and send a message to the client device identifying the specified location using the one or more semantic markers.”
}
Regarding claim 6, it recites A method having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 7, it recites A non-transitory computer storage medium having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Additionally Limaye teaches A non-transitory computer storage medium storing a program causing a computer to execute:
{Para [0036] “In one example, computing device 110 may be an autonomous driving computing system incorporated into vehicle 100. The autonomous driving computing system may capable of communicating with various components of the vehicle. For example, returning to FIG. 1, computing device 110 may be in communication with various self-driving systems of vehicle 100, such as deceleration system 160 (for controlling braking of the vehicle), acceleration system 162 (for controlling acceleration of the vehicle), steering system 164 (for controlling the orientation of the wheels and direction of the vehicle), signaling system 166 (for controlling turn signals), navigation system 168 (for navigating the vehicle to a location or around objects), positioning system 170 (for determining the position of the vehicle), perception system 172 (for detecting objects in the vehicle's environment), and power system 174 (for example, a battery and/or gas or diesel powered engine) in order to control the movement, speed, etc. of vehicle 100 in accordance with the instructions 132 of memory 130 in an autonomous driving mode which does not require or need continuous or periodic input from a passenger of the vehicle. Again, although these systems are shown as external to computing device 110, in actuality, these systems may also be incorporated into computing device 110, again as an autonomous driving computing system for controlling vehicle 100.”
}
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limaye (US 20220097734 A1) in view of Korjus et al. (US 20210397187 A1, hereinafter known as Korjus) and Official Notice.
Regarding Claim 4, Limaye in view of Korjus teaches The moving object control system according to claim 1.
Limaye does not teach, wherein the highly public facility is a school, a cram school, or a station, and wherein the facility that is not highly public is a private house.
However, Official notice teaches wherein the highly public facility is a school, a cram school, or a station, and wherein the facility that is not highly public is a private house.
{It is well known that a school cram school and station fall under the public category and may be considered highly public because they accommodate large numbers of people from various groups and are operated by public institutions. A private home is not highly public because it is operated by a distinct small group that isn’t a public institution.
It should be noted that as discussed in claim 1 under broadest reasonable interpretation there need not be a difference in the determination of criterion between a highly public facility and not a highly public facility .
}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Limaye in view of Korjus to incorporate the teachings of official notice to define highly public facility as a school, a cram school, or a station, and the facility that is not highly public as a private house because it is well known that a school cram school and station fall under the public category and may be considered highly public because they accommodate large numbers of people from various groups and are operated by public institutions. A private home is not highly public because it is operated by a distinct small group that isn’t a public institution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Gu et al. (US 20220101207 A1) teaches in para [0067-0068] “The intersection-location system 104 determines other intersection-location attributes that impact an effectiveness, an efficiency, or a practicality of selecting a candidate designated location as well. For example, the intersection-location system 104 determines a walking distance for a requester (e.g., associated with the requester device 112) to arrive at the candidate designated location. In some embodiments, the intersection-location system 104 determines a walking distance from a current location of the requester device 112. In these same or other embodiments, the intersection-location system 104 determines a walking distance from a requested location submitted with a transportation request.
When determining intersection-location attributes, in some cases, the intersection-location system 104 determines a likelihood that the transportation vehicle or the provider will have to move from the candidate designated location before the requester arrives at the candidate designated location. To elaborate, the intersection-location system 104 identifies locations such as timed parking zones, no loading zones, school zones, constructions zones, specialized vehicle parking zones, or other areas that would prohibit a provider from stopping at the candidate designated location (either at all or for a threshold period of time). In some embodiments, the intersection-location system 104 determines this likelihood by accessing historical transportation data that indicates previous instances where providers have been unable to stop at, or have moved from, the candidate designated location before a requester arrived at the candidate designated location.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MATTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4296. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00.
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, James Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668