DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input unit that receives an input of an operation parameter of the moving body” and “an output unit that outputs the first evaluation result obtained using the information processing method according to claim 1.” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the disclosed corresponding structure comprise input unit 21 of information processing terminal 200 as receiving "operational input provided with an input device such as a mouse or keyboard, or with the user's finger," and describes output unit 22 as "a liquid crystal display" that "includes a touch panel display and therefore serves as input unit 21 as well." The specification therefore informs a person of ordinary skill in the art that the recited "input unit" and "output unit" denote the ordinary classes of computer input and display hardware.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210407021) in view of Bagschik et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210097148).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroi discloses an information processing method to be executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising (para 279, “The aforementioned configurations, functions, and the like may be realized by software where a processor interprets and executes a program that realizes each function.”): executing, based on an operation parameter of a moving body that accommodates a person or a delivery item, a simulation for a movement of the moving body and a transport demand for the person or the delivery item (para 112, “The service plan is a service plan including the timetable, the route, the vehicle (capacity), and the like of the transportation mode to be operated.”; also, para 75, “In the operation unit 500, the simulation program 501 operates, simulating the number of users and the delay time for each transportation operator, transportation mode, service, and area for when the transportation mode is operated according to the service plan 511 stored in the storage unit 510.”; also, para 85, “The simulation system 103 operates the aforementioned simulation program 501 on the basis of the service plan issued in step 608 and the simulation request issued in step 608, and the number of users and the delay time are simulated for a case in which the service plan issued in step 608 is implemented (step 609).”); outputting a first evaluation result of evaluating an execution result of the simulation (para 88, “The service arbitration system 102 (service plan formulation program 402) once again calculates/evaluates the KPI values on the basis of the simulation results issued in step 610 (step 607).”; also, para 99, “The agreement forming system 204 or the transportation operator service planning system 203 displays the service state and the KPI values on the basis of the simulation results and calculation/evaluation results for the KPI values issued in step 617 (step 618).”) request information indicating a request about the operation of the moving body, the request being made with respect to the first evaluation result (para 234, “Additionally, the display screen 1200 may be configured such that a KPI to be improved can be designated by tapping that KPI on the display.”; also, para 238, “With the display screen 1200 illustrated in FIG. 12, it is possible to confirm the KPIs and the KPI values for each transportation operator, each transportation mode, each route, each service, and each section, designate an improvement target, and issue an improvement request to the service arbitration system.”; also, para 226, “The improvement request button 1202 is a button to issue a service improvement request to the service arbitration system 102.”); executing the simulation in accordance with the request information obtained (para 84, “The service arbitration system 102 (service plan formulation program 402) formulates a service plan on the basis of the improvement request and conditions issued in step 606 (step 607), the formulated service plan is issued to the simulation system 103, and a simulation request is issued to the simulation system 103 (step 608).”; also, para 94, “The simulation system 103 operates the aforementioned simulation program 501, and once again simulates the number of users and the delay time on the basis of the recommendation plan and the service plan issued in step 614 (step 615).”); and outputting a second evaluation result of evaluating an execution result of the simulation (para 98, “The service arbitration system 102 (service plan formulation program 402) issues, to the agreement forming system 204 or the transportation operator service planning system 203, the simulation results issued in step 616 and the calculation/evaluation results of the KPI values calculated/evaluated in step 607 on the basis of the simulation results (step 617).”; also, para 236, “In this case, as illustrated in FIG. 12, the display screen 1200 may be configured such that both the current (pre-change) and post-change KPIs and KPI values are displayed.”) at least a safety index for an operation of the moving body.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bagschik discloses disclose using at least a safety index for an operation of the moving body (para 116, “At operation 816 of example process 800, the process can include determining, based on the simulation data, a safety metric associated with the vehicle controller.”; also, para 20, “Aggregating the simulation data related to the parameterized scenario can provide safety metrics associated with the parameterized scenario.”; also, para 60, “The vehicle performance data 132 can then indicate a safety metric associated with the parameterized scenario 122.”; also, para 60, “In some instances, the vehicle performance component 130 can use a target metric and compare the vehicle performance data 132 with the target metric to determine if the safety metric meets or exceeds the target metric.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroi's invention of a computer-executed information processing method that executes, based on an operation parameter of a passenger-carrying transportation mode, a simulation of the movement of that transportation mode and of the transport demand of its users, that outputs a first evaluation result of evaluating the execution result of that simulation, that obtains request information indicating an improvement request made by the operator with respect to that first evaluation result, that re-executes the simulation in accordance with the obtained request information, and that outputs a second evaluation result of evaluating the execution result of that simulation, with the features of Bagschik's invention of evaluating the execution result of a vehicle simulation using at least a safety index for the operation of the vehicle. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Bagschik teaches that the data produced by running a simulation of a vehicle carrying passengers can be aggregated into a quantified safety metric for that vehicle's simulated operation, and that the safety metric can be compared against a target metric so that an operator learns, before deployment, whether the simulated operation meets the safety target, and because Hiroi already evaluates each simulated service plan against a set of key performance indicators designated by the transportation operator and expressly contemplates that the operator designates which indicators the plan is to satisfy and which is to be improved, so supplying Bagschik's quantified safety measure to Hiroi's evaluation stage adds one more known and computable measure of the simulated operation to an evaluation stage already built to accept such measures, yielding the predictable result of a transportation service plan whose simulated safety, and not merely its punctuality and its profitability, is measured and presented to the operator before the plan is adopted.
Regarding claim 6, Hiroi as modified by Bagschik discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein Hiroi further discloses execution result of the simulation is further evaluated using an economic rationality index and a convenience index for the operation of the moving body (Hiroi: para 69, “The KPI may be at least one of the revenue, cost, profit, and the like, in addition to the transportation operator, the transportation mode, the service, the number of users in each section, the supply/demand balance (the difference between supply and demand; the difference between capacity and occupancy, for example), the delay time, and the crowdedness of the vehicle (number of users per traveled distance), and the like.”; also, para 241, “As illustrated in the KPI display area 1302, in this example, the punctuality (such as a delay time), the supply/demand balance (which is 0 when the number of passengers is equal to the capacity, and if the capacity is exceeded, a positive value is added, and if the capacity is not reached, a negative value is added), and the crowdedness (such as the number of passengers per traveled distance) are displayed as the KPIs.”). Hiroi does not disclose wherein in each of outputting the first evaluation result and outputting the second evaluation result.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bagschik discloses wherein in each of outputting the first evaluation result and outputting the second evaluation result (para 116, “At operation 816 of example process 800, the process can include determining, based on the simulation data, a safety metric associated with the vehicle controller.”; also, para 60, “In some instances, the vehicle performance component 130 can use a target metric and compare the vehicle performance data 132 with the target metric to determine if the safety metric meets or exceeds the target metric.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroi's invention of further evaluating the execution result of the simulation using an economic rationality index and a convenience index for the operation of the moving body with the features of Bagschik's invention of determining, from the data produced by the simulation, a safety metric for the operation of the vehicle and comparing it against a target metric, so that each of the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result reports the safety of the simulated operation together with its economic rationality and its convenience. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Hiroi's key performance indicators, which are revenue, cost and profit on the one hand and delay time, crowdedness and supply-demand balance on the other, measure only what a service plan costs and how well it serves its users, and are recomputed on the results of every simulation and every re-simulation, while Bagschik teaches that the data produced by the same kind of simulation can also be aggregated into a quantified safety measure of the vehicle's operation, so reporting Bagschik's safety measure alongside the indicators Hiroi already recomputes for each simulation run is the addition of one more computable measure to an evaluation stage Hiroi expressly built to accept whatever indicators the operator designates, yielding the predictable result that the operator sees, for the initial plan and for each re-simulated plan alike, the safety of the plan next to its cost and its convenience, and can trade the three against one another before the plan is adopted.
Regarding claim 7, Hiroi as modified by Bagschik discloses the information processing method according to claim 6, wherein Hiroi further discloses in obtaining the request information, improvement information indicating any one improvement selected from (Hiroi: para 234, “Additionally, the display screen 1200 may be configured such that a KPI to be improved can be designated by tapping that KPI on the display.”; also, para 238, “With the display screen 1200 illustrated in FIG. 12, it is possible to confirm the KPIs and the KPI values for each transportation operator, each transportation mode, each route, each service, and each section, designate an improvement target, and issue an improvement request to the service arbitration system.”; also, para 82, “The transportation operator, local government officials, or the like confirm the service state, the KPI values, and the like displayed in step 605, and the agreement forming system 204 or the transportation operator service planning system 203 issues an improvement request to the service arbitration system 102 (step 606).”) operation of the moving body is obtained as the request information (Hiroi: para 69, “The KPI may be at least one of the revenue, cost, profit, and the like, in addition to the transportation operator, the transportation mode, the service, the number of users in each section, the supply/demand balance (the difference between supply and demand; the difference between capacity and occupancy, for example), the delay time, and the crowdedness of the vehicle (number of users per traveled distance), and the like.”; also, para 241, “As illustrated in the KPI display area 1302, in this example, the punctuality (such as a delay time), the supply/demand balance (which is 0 when the number of passengers is equal to the capacity, and if the capacity is exceeded, a positive value is added, and if the capacity is not reached, a negative value is added), and the crowdedness (such as the number of passengers per traveled distance) are displayed as the KPIs.”). Hiroi does not disclose improvement in safety.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bagschik discloses improvement in safety (para 60, “In some instances, the vehicle performance component 130 can use a target metric and compare the vehicle performance data 132 with the target metric to determine if the safety metric meets or exceeds the target metric.”; also, para 116, “At operation 816 of example process 800, the process can include determining, based on the simulation data, a safety metric associated with the vehicle controller.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroi's invention of obtaining, as the request information, improvement information indicating any one improvement the operator selects from among the indicators against which the simulated plan is evaluated, those indicators being the economic rationality and the convenience of the operation of the moving body, with the features of Bagschik's invention of a safety metric for the operation of the vehicle that is determined from the simulation data and measured against a target the operation is to meet or exceed. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Bagschik teaches that the safety of a simulated vehicle operation is a quantified measure that can be held to a target and improved until the target is met, and because Hiroi already lets the operator tap any one of the displayed indicators to designate it as the improvement target and issue the corresponding improvement request, so once the safety measure of Bagschik is reported among the indicators Hiroi displays, making it selectable as the improvement target requires nothing more of Hiroi's interface than it already does for cost and for punctuality, yielding the predictable result that an operator who sees an unsafe simulated plan can ask for a safer one in the same way, and by the same act, as an operator who sees an unprofitable plan asks for a cheaper one.
Regarding claim 10, Hiroi as modified by Bagschik discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein Hiroi further discloses comprising: outputting recommendation information that recommends modification to the operation parameter of the moving body (Hiroi: para 94, “The simulation system 103 operates the aforementioned simulation program 501, and once again simulates the number of users and the delay time on the basis of the recommendation plan and the service plan issued in step 614 (step 615).“; also, para 235, “The broken line in the figure indicates a change point. The example of FIG. 12 illustrates a case in which a new shuttle route is to be added to the section indicated by the broken line. “; also, para 237, “The approve button 1203 is a button to approve of the change in service plan, and by operating this button, the user (operator) can issue an approval notification to the service arbitration system 102 regarding the service plan displayed on the current screen (that is, the new plan after the service plan is changed as described above).“) first evaluation result and the second evaluation result.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bagschik discloses the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result (para 116, “At operation 816 of example process 800, the process can include determining, based on the simulation data, a safety metric associated with the vehicle controller.”; also, para 60, “In some instances, the vehicle performance component 130 can use a target metric and compare the vehicle performance data 132 with the target metric to determine if the safety metric meets or exceeds the target metric.”; also, para 20, “Aggregating the simulation data related to the parameterized scenario can provide safety metrics associated with the parameterized scenario.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroi's invention of outputting recommendation information that recommends a modification of the operation parameter of the moving body with the features of Bagschik's invention of determining, from the data produced by the simulation, a safety metric for the operation of the vehicle and measuring it against a target the operation is to meet or exceed, so that the recommendation is founded on the safety evaluated in the initial run and on the safety evaluated in the re-run alike. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Hiroi already formulates and presents to the operator a recommendation plan, marking on the map the change point at which a route is to be added and displaying the evaluation of the plan before the change alongside the evaluation of the plan after it, and Hiroi builds that recommendation from whatever indicators it has recomputed on each simulation run, while Bagschik teaches that the data produced by such a run can also be aggregated into a quantified safety measure of the vehicle's operation and held to a target, so founding Hiroi's recommendation on the safety measure of the initial run and of the re-run, as well as on the indicators Hiroi already uses, requires no change to how Hiroi generates or presents a recommendation, yielding the predictable result that the operator is told which operation parameter to change in order to make the service safer, and not merely cheaper or more punctual, on the strength of what both simulation runs showed about its safety.
Regarding claim 12, Hiroi as modified by Bagschik discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program, the computer program causing a computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 1 (Hiroi: para 279, “The information for realizing the respective functions such as programs, tables, and files may be stored in a storage device such as a non-volatile semiconductor memory, a hard disk drive, or an SSD (solid state drive), or a non-transitory computer readable data storage medium such as an IC card, an SD card, and a DVD.”; also, para 279, “The aforementioned configurations, functions, and the like may be realized by software where a processor interprets and executes a program that realizes each function.”; also, para 75, “In the operation unit 500, the simulation program 501 operates, simulating the number of users and the delay time for each transportation operator, transportation mode, service, and area for when the transportation mode is operated according to the service plan 511 stored in the storage unit 510.”).
Regarding claim 13, Hiroi as modified by Bagschik discloses an information processing terminal comprising: an input unit that receives an input of an operation parameter of the moving body (Hiroi: para 42, “The transportation operator service planning system 203 and the agreement forming system 204 are systems used by transportation operators as well as one or more transportation operators, local governments, and the like, and can display the service state and KPIs from service plans formulated by the service arbitration system 102 or designate formulation conditions for the service plans.”; also, para 112, “The service plan is a service plan including the timetable, the route, the vehicle (capacity), and the like of the transportation mode to be operated.”); and an output unit that outputs the first evaluation result obtained using the information processing method according to claim 1 (refer to claim 1; also, Hiroi: para 224, “A display screen 1200 of the transportation operator service plan system 203 includes a time bar 1201, an improvement request button, an approve button 1203, and a KPI display area 1204, in addition to the route and service status of the transportation mode operated by the transportation operator displayed on a map 1205.”; also, para 81, “The agreement forming system 204 or the transportation operator service planning system 203 displays the service state, KPI values, and the like on the basis of the current state evaluation results provided by the service arbitration system 102 in step 604 (step 605).”), the first evaluation result being obtained based on the operation parameter of the moving body received by the input unit (Hiroi: para 42, “The transportation operator service planning system 203 and the agreement forming system 204 are systems used by transportation operators as well as one or more transportation operators, local governments, and the like, and can display the service state and KPIs from service plans formulated by the service arbitration system 102 or designate formulation conditions for the service plans.”; also, para 75, “In the operation unit 500, the simulation program 501 operates, simulating the number of users and the delay time for each transportation operator, transportation mode, service, and area for when the transportation mode is operated according to the service plan 511 stored in the storage unit 510.”; also, para 112, “The service plan is a service plan including the timetable, the route, the vehicle (capacity), and the like of the transportation mode to be operated.”; also, para 88, “The service arbitration system 102 (service plan formulation program 402) once again calculates/evaluates the KPI values on the basis of the simulation results issued in step 610 (step 607).”), wherein the input unit further receives an input of the request information (Hiroi: para 226, “The improvement request button 1202 is a button to issue a service improvement request to the service arbitration system 102.”; also, para 234, “Additionally, the display screen 1200 may be configured such that a KPI to be improved can be designated by tapping that KPI on the display.”), and the output unit outputs the second evaluation result obtained using the information processing method (Hiroi: para 98, “The service arbitration system 102 (service plan formulation program 402) issues, to the agreement forming system 204 or the transportation operator service planning system 203, the simulation results issued in step 616 and the calculation/evaluation results of the KPI values calculated/evaluated in step 607 on the basis of the simulation results (step 617).”; also, para 236, “In this case, as illustrated in FIG. 12, the display screen 1200 may be configured such that both the current (pre-change) and post-change KPIs and KPI values are displayed.”), the second evaluation result being obtained based on the request information received by the input unit (Hiroi: para 84, “The service arbitration system 102 (service plan formulation program 402) formulates a service plan on the basis of the improvement request and conditions issued in step 606 (step 607), the formulated service plan is issued to the simulation system 103, and a simulation request is issued to the simulation system 103 (step 608).”; also, para 94, “The simulation system 103 operates the aforementioned simulation program 501, and once again simulates the number of users and the delay time on the basis of the recommendation plan and the service plan issued in step 614 (step 615).”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210407021) as modified by Bagschik et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210097148), further in view of Chintakindi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180306596).
Regarding claim 2, Hiroi as modified by Bagschik discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: risk map indicating an occurrence pattern of a safety risk in the operation of the moving body.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Chintakindi discloses outputting a risk map indicating an occurrence pattern of a safety risk in the operation of the moving body (para 52, “In step 340, the computing device may generate one or more dynamic risk map based on risk score(s). The risk map may comprise a representation of risk (e.g., risk score or factors) based on location, weather, traffic, context and other variables.”; also, para 45, “The risk map may indicate, among other characteristics, risk scores for one or more segments of a road, such as on a route from an origin location to a destination location.”; also, para 32, “Risk scores may indicate the level of risk to, for example, bicycles near the vicinity of one or more vehicles, motorcycles, pedestrians, farm equipment, etc.”; also, para 46, “For example, traffic congestion and/or navigation or risk scores may be represented by different colors on the dynamic map, such as red (heavy congestion or high risk), white (medium congestion or medium risk), or blue (low congestion or low risk).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroi's invention as modified by Bagschik with the features of Chintakindi's invention of outputting a risk map indicating an occurrence pattern of a safety risk in the operation of the moving body. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Chintakindi teaches that presenting risk scores as a dynamic map on which each road segment is colored according to its level of risk to vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians lets a user see where the risk concentrates and use that picture to decide when and where to deploy vehicles, and because Hiroi already displays the routes and the service status of the transportation mode on a map of the target area and already varies the color of the symbol displayed on that map according to the value of an indicator taken from the simulation results, so rendering on that same map the safety index that Bagschik computes is the application of a known display technique to a display Hiroi already provides, yielding the predictable result that the operator can see not merely that the simulated service plan carries safety risk but where along the routes that risk arises.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210407021) as modified by Bagschik et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210097148) and Chintakindi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180306596), further in view of Kabirzadeh et al. (U.S. Doc. No. 11150660).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroi as modified by Bagschik and Chintakindi discloses the information processing method according to claim 2, wherein in obtaining the request information, occurrence pattern of the safety risk that has been added to or modified in the risk map is obtained as the request information.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kabirzadeh discloses information indicating the occurrence pattern of the safety risk that has been added to or modified in the risk map is obtained as the request information (col 18, “The scenario editor component 250 can allow a user to modify the scenario generated by the scenario component 246. For example, as discussed above, the user can, using the filtering component 244, remove simulated objects from the simulated scenario and/or add in objects that the filtering component 244 removed. In some instances, the user can add new simulated objects that do not correspond to the log data”; also, col 22, “The events button 614 can allow a user to view a list of events of interest as well as edit the events of interest. For example, the user can view the list of events of interest associated with the simulated scenario. In some instances, a timeline view of all events of interest can be displayed (e.g., a lane change at time x, a sudden stop at time y, etc.). For example, the user can begin the simulation and observe an action, such as a turn, taken by an object. The user can then use the events button 614 to add the turn as an event of interest which can force the simulation to perform that event.”; also, col 3, “In some instances, an event of interest can include detecting a collision with another object, a violation of a traffic rule (e.g., a speed limit), and/or a disengagement where a human driver takes control of the operation of the vehicle from an autonomous controller.”; also, col 24, “At operation 718, the simulation component 252 can generate simulation data that can indicate how an autonomous controller responds to the simulated scenario. As discussed above, the user can cause the simulated scenario to execute via a user interface that can also allow the user to view a graphical representation of the scenario and edit the scenario.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroi's invention as modified by Bagschik and Chintakindi with the features of Kabirzadeh's invention of obtaining, as the input on which the simulation is re-executed, information indicating a safety risk occurrence that the user has added to or modified in the displayed representation of the simulated environment. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Kabirzadeh teaches that an operator evaluating a simulated vehicle operation frequently needs to exercise a particular safety event, a collision, a sudden stop, or a traffic-rule violation, that the simulation did not itself produce, and that the way to obtain that evaluation is to let the operator add or edit that event directly in the graphical representation of the scenario and then execute the edited scenario to generate new simulation data, and because Hiroi already accepts a change designated by the operator on the displayed map of the target area as the improvement request that drives the re-formulation and the re-simulation of the service plan, so allowing the operator to enter that request by adding or editing a safety-risk occurrence on the risk map that Chintakindi renders, rather than by tapping a numeric indicator, is the application of a known input technique to an input stage Hiroi already provides, yielding the predictable result that the operator can specify not merely that safety must improve but exactly which risk occurrence, at which location, the re-simulation must account for.
Regarding claim 4, Hiroi as modified by Bagschik, Chintakindi, and Kabirzadeh discloses the information processing method according to claim 3, wherein, Chintakindi further comprising: outputting factor information indicating a factor that affects safety in the operation of the moving body, based on the occurrence pattern of the safety risk that has been added to or modified in the risk map (para 49, “The computing device may also use drilldown displays. For example, the first bubble displayed may indicate the risk score for a segment. If the user selects the risk score or other GUI element in the bubble, the map may display which factors (e.g., historical and/or real time factors) and/or which data (e.g., historical and/or real time data) were used to generate the risk score.”), wherein in obtaining the request information, the factor information that has been selected or modified is obtained as the request information (para 49, “As previously explained, toggles may be provided so that a user may turn on or turn off each factor used to calculate a risk score. These toggles may also be displayed on the dynamic map, such as in one of the drilldown displays.”; also, para 52, “As previously explained, drilldown information may be displayed, and the user may be able to toggle each factor considered in determining the risk score. Thus, the user may determine which factors are more important and which factors are less important when deciding to deploy a fleet.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Chintakindi's invention of outputting, in a drilldown display attached to a risk entry on the map, the factor information indicating the factors that affect the safety score of that entry, and of taking the user's selection or modification of those factors as the input on which the score is recomputed. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Chintakindi teaches that a bare risk score tells the operator that a segment is dangerous but not why, that presenting the underlying factors in the map bubble and letting the operator toggle each one on or off is how the operator determines which factors matter when deciding to deploy a fleet, and that the toggled factor set is what the score is then recomputed from, and because the combination already places on the map a risk occurrence that the operator has added or edited and already re-executes the simulation from what the operator supplies, so deriving the contributing factors from that added or edited occurrence and returning them to the operator for selection is the application of Chintakindi's own drilldown technique to a risk entry the combination already displays, yielding the predictable result that the operator can shape the re-simulation by confirming or correcting the factors the system inferred from the risk the operator drew, without having to enumerate every risk occurrence by hand.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210407021) as modified by Bagschik et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210097148), further in view of Kudo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20170206290).
Regarding claim 5, Hiroi as modified by Bagschik discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein in outputting the first evaluation result, request information, plurality of the first evaluation results are outputted, each of the plurality of the first evaluation results being the first evaluation result, and information indicating any one first evaluation result selected from the plurality of first evaluation results is obtained as the requested information.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kudo discloses a plurality of the first evaluation results are outputted, each of the plurality of the first evaluation results being the first evaluation result (para 60, “In Step 202, the simulation unit 107 outputs a plurality of evaluation values per simulation. To execute the simulation using a plurality of combinations of the values of the parameters 303, a plurality of evaluation values as a plurality of groups is output by a plurality of simulations.”; also, para 66, “The result groups (result groups #10 to #24) in the first simulation are a set of evaluation values F that have been calculated on the basis of the initial setting information 300 shown in FIG. 4 and the evaluation function. In the time series graph 400a shown in FIG. 5, a horizontal axis indicates the time and a vertical axis indicates the evaluation value F.”), and information indicating any one first evaluation result selected from the plurality of first evaluation results is obtained as the requested information (para 71, “If the user instructs the user input unit 103 to execute a re-simulation for analyzing the notable phenomenon, the user input unit 103 accepts resetting information input from the user. The re-simulation for analyzing the notable phenomenon will be referred to as a second simulation, hereinafter. At this time, the user selects one result group in the first simulation to be analyzed by the second simulation from among the result groups #10 to #24 shown in FIG. 5.”; also, para 72, “The first simulation for the selected result group will be referred to as the analysis simulation, hereinafter. The user inputs, as resetting information, the identifiers of the selected result group (that is, identifiers of the analysis simulation) and parameters and the like used in the second simulation to the user input unit 103.”; also, para 88, “After Step 204, the simulation unit 107 acquires the resetting information 310a via the storage device such as the memory 122, and executes the simulation using the evaluation values F at the start time 311a of the analysis simulation, the evaluation function held in advance, and the resetting information 310a (205).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroi's invention as modified by Bagschik with the features of Kudo's invention of outputting a plurality of evaluation values as a plurality of result groups from a plurality of simulation runs, of accepting the user's selection of any one of those result groups, and of taking the identifier of the selected result group as the resetting information on which the simulation is then re-executed. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Kudo teaches that a simulation run over several combinations of parameter values yields not one outcome but a plurality of evaluation-value groups, that displaying those groups lets the user find the outcome worth pursuing, and that the way to pursue it is to have the user select that one result group and to feed the identifier of the selected group back in as the resetting information from which the second simulation is executed, and because Hiroi already evaluates each simulated service plan against the indicators the operator designates and already accepts an improvement request the operator makes with respect to what is displayed, so presenting the several evaluated outcomes together and taking the operator's choice among them as that request applies Kudo's known technique to an evaluation-and-request loop Hiroi already provides, yielding the predictable result that the operator resolves the trade-off among safety, cost and convenience by pointing at the evaluated outcome to be pursued, rather than by describing in the abstract what is to be improved.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210407021) as modified by Bagschik et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210097148), further in view of Golovidov et al. (U.S. Doc. No. 11151480).
Regarding claim 11, Hiroi as modified by Bagschik discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: in outputting the second evaluation result, second evaluation result is output in a visual mode different from a mode for outputting the first evaluation result.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Golovidov discloses the second evaluation result is output in a visual mode different from a mode for outputting the first evaluation result (col 40, “Data points of scatter plot 912 may be presented using different colors and/or symbols to further distinguish each iteration. Scatter plot 912 allows the user to quickly see the history of the objective function values and view the progress of the tuning process iteration-by-iteration.”; also, col 44, “Both the scatter plot symbols and iteration histogram 1302 are colored with a common color indicating a specific iteration counter to amplify a distinction between the hyperparameter values evaluated each iteration.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroi's invention as modified by Bagschik with the features of Golovidov's invention of outputting the evaluation result of each successive iteration in a color and symbol different from those used for the preceding iteration. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Golovidov teaches that where the same objective is evaluated repeatedly and the results are plotted together, distinguishing each iteration by color and symbol is what allows the user to see the history of the objective values and follow the progress of the search from one iteration to the next, and because Hiroi already displays the pre-change evaluation and the post-change evaluation of the service plan together on the same screen and already varies the color, size and shape of the displayed symbols to encode the information they represent, so rendering the post-change evaluation in a visual mode different from that of the pre-change evaluation requires no change to Hiroi's display and merely puts Hiroi's existing symbol-encoding capability to the use Golovidov describes, yielding the predictable result that the operator can visually distinguish the evaluation of the re-simulated plan from the evaluation of the plan it replaced even when the two evaluations are numerically close.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 requires that, while the simulation is being re-executed in accordance with the improvement the operator selected, the simulation is instead executed, at a predetermined probability, in accordance with a unique parameter different from that selected improvement. The art teaches executing a simulation in accordance with an operator selected improvement, and separately teaches gating a stochastic operator by a predetermined probability. In the context of claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 as a whole, however, it does not teach or suggest departing from the operator's own selected improvement at a predetermined probability in order to execute the simulation on a parameter that selection does not call for. Claim 9 comprises allowable subject matter insomuch as it depends from claim 8, which comprises allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclose: Selvam et al. (U.S. Doc. No. 11663915), Kawamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220327563), Yanami et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20100057410), Danna et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210403035), and Dotan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120109606).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jai Li whose telephone number is (571)272-1170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu between 06:00-16:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571)272-7761. 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.
/JAI W LI/Junior Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights