DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on December 5, 2024 (which is a continuation of PCT/JP2023/019921), and claims foreign priority to JP2022-093143 (filed in Japan on June 8, 2022)). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (see the certified copy received on January 7, 2025), and thus the effective filing date is June 8, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The examiner acknowledges two Information Disclosure Statements submitted on December 5, 2024 and October 1, 2025, respectively. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
4. Claims 1-12 are pending in the case; Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims. This action is made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
5. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1 (and similarly, independent Claim 12) recites (a) “acquire, from a vehicle that manually travels along a route that the agricultural machine is scheduled to travel automatically while recording a travel path, data representing the travel path” and (b) “remove, from the travel path, a path associated with an avoidance action performed to avoid an oncoming vehicle,” but it is not clear how the “acquire” and “remove” steps, as presented in the claims, are to be interpreted. For example, with respect to (a), the claim is indefinite in regard to which vehicle (the agricultural machine or the vehicle that manually travels) is recording the travel path. Similarly, with respect to (b), the claim is indefinite in regard to whether the “remove” action is performed in order to avoid an oncoming vehicle or if the “avoidance action performed to avoid an oncoming vehicle” is associated with the path to be removed. It is noted that instant Specification (see ¶¶ 0041, 0044-45) describes that vehicle 20 (i.e., “a vehicle that manually travels along a route”) collects/records the data necessary for generating an automated travel route, but this is not clearly recited in the claim. Similarly, instant Specification (see Figs. 5A-C, ¶¶ 0051-57) describes that a path 92 (also referred to as the “avoidance route”) associated with the avoidance action to avoid an oncoming vehicle, is removed from the travel path, but this is not clearly recited in the claim.
Dependent Claims 2-111 fail to cure the above-noted deficiencies and are thus also rejected under the same rationale.
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.
6. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: A route generation system for automated travel of an agricultural machine, the route generation system comprising: a processor configured or programmed to generate an automated travel route of the agricultural machine; wherein the processor is configured or programmed to:
acquire, from a vehicle that manually travels along a route that the agricultural machine is scheduled to travel automatically while recording a travel path, data representing the travel path;
remove, from the travel path, a path associated with an avoidance action performed to avoid an oncoming vehicle; and
generate an automated travel route of the agricultural machine based on the travel path from which the path associated with the avoidance action has been removed.
Step 1 – Statutory Category - Yes
The claim recites a system (a machine) thus it falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental process
In Step 2A, Prong one, of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is 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 limitations constitute a judicial exception in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1 recites the limitations of removing a path associated with an avoidance action and generating an automated travel route. These steps, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind (or by a human using a pen and paper). Nothing in the claim, other than a recitation of “a processor configured to or programmed to” execute these steps, precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person observing a traveled route and eliminating desired portions in order to generate a target route. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, prong two evaluation – Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites “a processor configured or programmed to generate an automated travel route of the agricultural machine,” but such recitation merely automates the recited steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Claim 1 further recites “acquire, from a vehicle that manually travels along a route that the agricultural machine is scheduled to travel automatically while recording a travel path, data representing the travel path,” but this limitation appears to be a form of insignificant extra solution activity recited at a high level of generality and amounts to “gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques.” Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea2.
Step 2B – Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to 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. See § MPEP 2106.05.
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 step of acquiring was considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and it is determined that it fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, as evidenced, for example, by Ando, US 12,431,021 B2 (see Figs. 8 and 10, col. 9, lines 9-32) or Eglington et al., US 2006/0175541 A1 (see ¶¶ 0055-56) (see also MPEP § 2106.05(d)), or else it is an insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), discussion of Mayo). The instant Specification does not provide any indication that the recited acquiring step is anything other than a well-understood functionality in field of automated route generation (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). There are no improvements of a computer or a technical field recited in the claim and there is no particular transformation of one thing into another (see MPEP § 2106.05(a-e)). The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities because they represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, Claim 1 is ineligible under § 101.
With respect to dependent Claims 2-11, these claims are directed to the system (machine) of Claim 1 (Step 1: Yes), and they recite subject matter that falls within “mental processes” grouping (Step 2A, prong one), but they do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application” (Step 2A, prong two) and do not recite additional elements that add an inventive concept to the claims (Step 2B). Therefore, these claims are ineligible under § 101. The respective dependent claims recite additional features further describing the acquiring, detecting (i.e., analyzing) and removing steps (Claims 2-7; field of use/technological environment and/or necessary data gathering), generating of the automated travel route (Claims 8-9 and 11; field of use/technological environment), and displaying the travel path (Claim 10; post-solution activity of displaying), but even in combination, the additional elements recited in these dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to independent Claim 12, this claim is directed to a method comprising steps nearly identical to those recited in Claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale as discussed with respect to Claim 1, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando, US 12,431,021 B2, issued on September 30, 2025 (claiming priority to at least December 15, 2020).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Ando teaches a route generation system for automated travel of (see Fig. 2 (element 210));
wherein the processor is configured or programmed to:
acquire, from a vehicle that manually travels along a route that the [autonomous vehicle] is scheduled to travel automatically while recording a travel path, data representing the travel path (see Figs. 8, 10 (element Rr), col. 8, lines 20-59, col. 9, lines 52-60, showing a map update processing where a manual driving vehicle records a route travelled, including the deviations caused by the obstacles).
remove, from the travel path, a path associated with an avoidance action performed to avoid an oncoming vehicle (see Figs. 10 (portion of Rr corresponding to section Rr1) and 11, col. 10, lines 18-64, showing that when recording a route, deviations (Rr1) around transient obstacles (To) are removed, while deviations (Rr2) around the permanent obstacles (Po) are recorded and used to update the map; see also Fig. 9 (element Ov), col. 9, lines 20-41, showing that an obstacle can be another vehicle).
generate an automated travel route of the agricultural machine based on the travel path from which the path associated with the avoidance action has been removed (see Fig. 12 (element Rd), col. 10, line 65 – col. 11, line 35, col. 12, lines 21-29, showing that an automated travel map is generated/updated based on the permanent obstacles (while the deviations of the manually driven vehicle due to transient obstacles are not used in the generation/updating), and further showing that such generated/updated map is distributed to other vehicles to allow such vehicles to travel the recorded route autonomously).
It is noted that Ando does not appear to explicitly teach an agricultural machine, but a skilled artisan would understand that any type of vehicle, including an agricultural machine, can travel along the recorded route in an autonomous manner (see col. 11, lines 53-67, col. 12, lines 21-29). Ando does not limit the travel routes to only a particular type of vehicles and a skilled artisan would understand that various vehicles can be navigated/controlled to follow an automated travel route recorded by another vehicle (see generally, Fig. 1 (element 100)). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the type of vehicle that uses the recorded map while travelling autonomously when considering Ando in order to reduce the calculation amount performed in relation to navigating an autonomous vehicle, of any type, on a given road utilizing the recorded route data (see col. 11, lines 53-67).
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Ando discloses the route generation system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the processor is configured or programmed to: acquire data of a video image taken by a camera mounted on the vehicle while the vehicle is traveling; and detect the avoidance action based on the video image and determine and remove the path associated with the avoidance action from the travel path (see Fig. 1 (element 110), col. 3, lines 1-23, col. 5, lines 4-18, col. 9, lines 20-32, showing an external sensor, such as an imaging device, used to recognize the type of an obstacle).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Ando discloses the route generation system according to claim 2, as discussed above, and while Ando does not appear to explicitly recite wherein the processor is configured or programmed to: identify an oncoming vehicle approaching the vehicle from the video image; and remove, as the path associated with an avoidance action, a path corresponding to at least a portion of a period from when the oncoming vehicle is identified to when the oncoming vehicle is no longer identified, from the travel path, a skilled artisan would understand that an oncoming vehicle (Ov) would be treated like any other obstacle described therein and that a determination would be made whether a deviation from the route was due to a permanent (Po) or transient (To) obstacle and the map would be generated/updated accordingly (see Figs. 10 and 12 and discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Ando discloses the route generation system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the processor is configured or programmed to detect the avoidance action based on a change over time of a position of the vehicle indicated by the travel path, and determine and remove the path associated with the avoidance action from the travel path (see Figs. 10 and 12, col. 9, line 52 – col. 11, line 35, and discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Ando discloses the route generation system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the processor is configured or programmed to detect, as the avoidance action, at least one of traveling backward, changing direction, accelerating, or decelerating done by the vehicle to avoid an oncoming vehicle (see Figs. 10 and 12, col. 9, line 52 – col. 11, line 35, and discussion of Claim 1, above, regarding changing direction (i.e., deviation from the virtual travel route)).
With respect to dependent Claim 6, Ando discloses the route generation system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the processor is configured or programmed to acquire position data sequentially output from a GNSS receiver mounted on the vehicle as data that represents the travel path (see Fig. 1 (element 120), col. 3, lines 20-23, col. 4, line 45 – col. 5, line 3).
With respect to dependent Claim 7, Ando discloses the route generation system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate, as the automated travel route, a route that is defined by a plurality of waypoints each including information on position and speed (see Figs. 9 (element Rv), 12 (element Rd), col. 5, lines 63-67, showing lane links included in the travel route information).
With respect to dependent Claim 8, Ando discloses the route generation system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate the automated travel route by performing a process of complementing a portion that has been removed from the travel path (see Fig. 12, col. 9, line 52 – col. 11, line 35, and discussion of Claim 1, above, regarding removal of deviation route corresponding to a transient obstacle).
With respect to dependent Claim 9, Ando discloses the route generation system according to claim 8, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate the automated travel route by complementing the portion that has been removed from the travel path with a straight complementing route (see col. 10, lines 31-39; see also Figs. 9, 10, and 12 with respect to Rr1 portion; in addition, a skilled artisan would understand that if the deviation is due only to a transient obstacle, the map would not be changed to correspond to Rr but would instead remain as Rv (straight route segments)).
With respect to dependent Claim 10, Ando discloses the route generation system according to claim 8, as discussed above, and while Ando does not appear to explicitly illustrate wherein the processor is configured or programmed to: display, on a display, the travel path with the path associated with the avoidance action removed; and complement the portion that has been removed from the travel path in response to an operation by a user to confirm a complementing route, a skilled artisan would understand that process illustrated in Figs. 10-12 could be displayed to a user for auditing purposes and/or to provide a history of map updates. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide for a display of map updates based on the recorded travel deviations of a manually traveling vehicle when considering Ando in order to provide for auditing of map updates and to allow for an operator to overrule changes and/or resolve ambiguities.
With respect to dependent Claim 11, Ando discloses the route generation system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and while Ando does not appear to explicitly state wherein the processor is configured or programmed to perform a process of generating the automated travel route when generating a route for the [autonomous vehicle] to perform automated travel outside a field, it appears that the updated route information is for an autonomous travel on a road, which is “outside a field” (see col. 11, lines 53-67, col. 12, lines 21-29; see also discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to independent Claim 12, Claim 12 is directed to a route generation method comprising steps and/or features similar to those recited in Claim 1, and is thus rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 1, above.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, Thode (US 2022/0253071 A1) suggests a vehicle traveling in autonomous mode on a nominal path where the map is regularly updated to account for obstacles (see Fig. 16, ¶¶ 0091-92); Barecke et al. (US 10,942,033 B2) suggests determining an alternative trajectory when an obstacle is detected (thus replacing a portion of the path associated with an avoidance action) (see Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 14-58); Gariepy et al. (US 2017/0197643 A1) discloses generating a replacement path when an obstacle is detected on the target path (see Fig. 8, ¶ 0068); Eglington et al. (US 2006/0175541 A1) discloses recording a path for an agricultural machine (see Figs. 4-5, ¶¶ 0055-56); etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
1 It is noted that dependent Claim 3 could be interpreted as clarifying the indefiniteness of part (b), but nevertheless fails to cure the indefiniteness of part (a).
2 It is noted that incorporating an explicit vehicle control into the claim (to act in response to the generated automated travel route, such as, controlling the agricultural machine to follow the automated travel route, or similar) would be considered as integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, and would thus render the claim eligible under § 101.