DETAILED ACTION
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 1/6/2025 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 1/9/2024.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Title Objections
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.
Restriction/Election of Species
Applicant's election without traverse of Species I, (Claims 1-6 and 9) in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged and is made FINAL.
Status of Application
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claims 1 and 9 are independent.
Claims 7-8 have been withdrawn from consideration but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claim.
Claims 1-6 and 9 will be examined below.
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the “Election of Species” received on 6/26/2026.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (system). Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 9 is directed to an process (method). Therefore, Claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
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.
Claims 1 and 9 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 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: A travel management system for managing travel of a vehicle in a predetermined area,
comprising: a recognition sensor installed in the predetermined area to recognize a situation in the predetermined area;
and a management server configured to:
with respect to a passage of the vehicle in the predetermined area, manage a traffic route defining a traveling position of the vehicle;
detect an object in the predetermined area using the recognition sensor;
execute a process of calculating a vehicle speed profile based on a positional relationship between the detected object and the traffic route,
the vehicle speed profile providing a vehicle speed condition to be followed by the vehicle at each position on the traffic route;
and when managing travel of a target vehicle, transmit the traveling position of at least a traveling section in which the target vehicle travels on the traffic route and the vehicle speed profile of the traveling section to a control system of the target vehicle.
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. Specifically, the “detecting, calculating and transmitting” steps encompass a user to gather information, calculate a speed and path, and transmit said speed and path the data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
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”):
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 “travel management system for managing”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “server” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the detecting, calculating and transmitting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the server is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception 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 exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a server. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of detecting an object and calculating a route and speed profile is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only gathers data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that receiving data and using a server, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a server to perform the process steps. In particular, the detecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the calculating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the route and speed profile are only transmitted and not positively stated as being used by the vehicle.
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 server 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 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 the apparatus, the server 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. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of detecting, calculating and transmitting, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of detecting, calculating, and transmitting are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. 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. Hence, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Further Claim 9 is not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-6 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1 and 9.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle with the transmitted data. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Sugano et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0388499).
With respect to Claim 1: Sugano discloses “A travel management system for managing travel of a vehicle in a predetermined area” [Sugano, ¶ 0082-0085 and 0113-0132 with Figure 11];
“comprising: a recognition sensor installed in the predetermined area to recognize a situation in the predetermined area” [Sugano, ¶ 0038-0040];
“and a management server configured to: with respect to a passage of the vehicle in the predetermined area, manage a traffic route defining a traveling position of the vehicle” [Sugano, ¶ 0082-0085 and 0113-0132 with Figure 11];
“detect an object in the predetermined area using the recognition sensor” [Sugano, ¶ 0082-0085 and 0113-0132 with Figure 11];
“execute a process of calculating a vehicle speed profile based on a positional relationship between the detected object and the traffic route” [Sugano, ¶ 0082-0085 and 0113-0132 with Figure 11];
“the vehicle speed profile providing a vehicle speed condition to be followed by the vehicle at each position on the traffic route” [Sugano, ¶ 0082-0085 and 0113-0132 with Figure 11];
“and when managing travel of a target vehicle, transmit the traveling position of at least a traveling section in which the target vehicle travels on the traffic route” [Sugano, ¶ 0082-0085 and 0113-0132 with Figure 11];
“and the vehicle speed profile of the traveling section to a control system of the target vehicle” [Sugano, ¶ 0082-0085 and 0113-0132 with Figure 11].
With respect to Claim 2: Sugano discloses “The travel management system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle speed condition is a maximum vehicle speed or a target vehicle speed of the vehicle.” [Sugano, ¶ 0082-0085 and 0113-0132 with Figure 11].
With respect to Claim 9: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claim 1. The method taught/disclosed in Claim 9 can clearly perform on the system of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0388499) in view of du Toit et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0216064).
With respect to Claim 3: While Sugano discloses “The travel management system according to claim 2, wherein in the process of calculating the vehicle speed profile, the management server is configured to: when the object is not detected, set the maximum vehicle speed or the target vehicle speed to a base speed” [Sugano, ¶ 0083-0084 and 0113-0132 with Figure 11];
Sugano does not specifically state how the speed profiles changes around objects.
du Toit, which is also a vehicle control system based on sensed objects teaches “wherein in the process of calculating the vehicle speed profile, the management server is configured to: when the object is not detected, set the maximum vehicle speed or the target vehicle speed to a base speed” [du Toit, ¶ 0008, 0135 and 0150];
“and when a distance between the detected object and a target point on the traffic route is equal to or less than a first threshold, set the maximum vehicle speed or the target vehicle speed in a target section including the target point on the traffic route to a suppressed speed lower than the base speed” [du Toit, ¶ 0008, 0100, 0135-0138 and 0150].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of du Toit into the invention of Sugano to not only include using sensor data to determine speed and path profiles for vehicles based on sensor data as Sugano discloses but to also vary the speed profile based on distance to objects as taught by du Toit with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art du Toit into Sugano to create a more robust system that not only account for objects in the environment but also the types of objects thus creating a safer environment “automated driving systems are likely to achieve better safety outcomes” [du Toit, ¶ 0059] Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of vehicle speed control based on objects and their locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 4: While Sugano discloses “The travel management system according to claim 3, wherein in the process of calculating the vehicle speed profile, the management server is configured to, when the distance is equal to or less than the first threshold, decrease the suppressed speed” [Sugano, ¶ 0083-0084 and 0113-0132 with Figure 11];
Sugano does not specifically state how the speed profiles changes around objects.
du Toit, which is also a vehicle control system based on sensed objects teaches “wherein in the process of calculating the vehicle speed profile, the management server is configured to, when the distance is equal to or less than the first threshold, decrease the suppressed speed as the distance becomes shorter” [du Toit, ¶ 0008, 0100, 0135-0138 and 0150].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of du Toit into the invention of Sugano to not only include using sensor data to determine speed and path profiles for vehicles based on sensor data as Sugano discloses but to also vary the speed profile based on distance to objects as taught by du Toit with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art du Toit into Sugano to create a more robust system that not only account for objects in the environment but also the types of objects thus creating a safer environment “automated driving systems are likely to achieve better safety outcomes” [du Toit, ¶ 0059] Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of vehicle speed control based on objects and their locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 5: While Sugano discloses “The travel management system according to claim 3, wherein in the process of calculating the vehicle speed profile” [Sugano, ¶ 0083-0084 and 0113-0132 with Figure 11];
Sugano does not specifically state how the speed profiles changes around objects.
du Toit, which is also a vehicle control system based on sensed objects teaches “wherein in the process of calculating the vehicle speed profile, the management server is configured to, when the distance is equal to or less than a second threshold smaller than the first threshold, set the maximum vehicle speed or the target vehicle speed in the target section to zero” [du Toit, ¶ 0008, 0100, 0135-0138 and 0150.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of du Toit into the invention of Sugano to not only include using sensor data to determine speed and path profiles for vehicles based on sensor data as Sugano discloses but to also vary the speed profile based on distance to objects as taught by du Toit with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art du Toit into Sugano to create a more robust system that not only account for objects in the environment but also the types of objects thus creating a safer environment “automated driving systems are likely to achieve better safety outcomes” [du Toit, ¶ 0059] Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of vehicle speed control based on objects and their locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 6: While Sugano discloses “The travel management system according to claim 5, wherein the management server is further configured to: acquire a classification of the object; and change at least one of the first threshold, the second threshold, and the suppressed speed depending on the classification of the object” [Sugano, ¶ 0083-0084 and 0113-0132 with Figure 11];
Sugano does not specifically state how the speed profiles changes around objects.
du Toit, which is also a vehicle control system based on sensed objects teaches “wherein the management server is further configured to: acquire a classification of the object; and change at least one of the first threshold, the second threshold, and the suppressed speed depending on the classification of the object” [du Toit, ¶ 0008, 0100, 0135-0138 and 0150.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of du Toit into the invention of Sugano to not only include using sensor data to determine speed and path profiles for vehicles based on sensor data as Sugano discloses but to also vary the speed profile based on distance to objects as taught by du Toit with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art du Toit into Sugano to create a more robust system that not only account for objects in the environment but also the types of objects thus creating a safer environment “automated driving systems are likely to achieve better safety outcomes” [du Toit, ¶ 0059] Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of vehicle speed control based on objects and their locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights