Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on June 22, 2026, for the application with serial number 19/0831827.
Claims 1, 3, 9-11, and 18-20 are amended.
Claims 7 and 16 are canceled.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Interview
The Examiner acknowledges the interview conducted on June 3, 2026, in which the subject matter eligibility of the claims was discussed.
Priority
The Examiner acknowledges that the priority document was certified as available on April 24, 2025. The context of the Failure Status Report submitted on August 24, 2025, remains unclear. The Examiner will grant priority to the foreign application dated March 22, 2024, absent any evidence that priority should not be granted.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea; contending that the present claims do not recite a method that falls within the abstract idea category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims recite steps or rules that a human being could follow to manage a fleet of vehicles. However, generic computer hardware is recited for implementing the abstract idea. The generic computer hardware does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the recited abstract idea. No special purpose hardware is recited in the claims. Determining to avoid operating a vehicle or fleet of vehicles in a region based on weather or accident information is an abstract idea, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, the rejection, below, is adequate. The analysis and conclusion draw on explicit language from the claims and the policy provided in MPEP §2106 to arrive at a conclusion of ineligibility.
The Applicant further contends that the present claims are subject matter eligible because the steps are not conventional. See Remarks p. 11. In response, the Examiner points out that lack of conventionality does not imply subject matter eligibility. No apparent improvement to a technology or technical field is recited in the claims. Additional elements outside the scope of the abstract idea have been considered, but they have been found to amount to generic computer hardware.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
35 USC §102/103 Rejections
Amendments to the claims changed the scope of the claims, necessitating further search and consideration of the prior art. A new search returned the Kentley-Klay reference, which is cited in the rejection of the independent claims, below. The Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the newly cited reference.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, claims(s) 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, under step 2A, prong one, the claims recite a judicial exception: managing an operation plan for vehicles (as evidenced by the preamble of exemplary independent claim 1), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “a database configured to store one or more users, [ ] one or more automated driving vehicles, one or more operation diagrams, and one or more locations on a route;” “display . . . one or more operation diagrams associated with at least one area;” and “limit . . . an operation diagram.” The steps are steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of managing an operation plan for vehicles that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of managing an operation plan for vehicles. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of managing an operation plan for vehicles. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes managing a fleet of vehicles that provide services to various geographical areas with varying conditions and environments.
Under step 2A, prong two, of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (an apparatus with a memory, controller, and display in independent claim 1; a method performed by an information processing apparatus and display in independent claim 11; and a system with a processing apparatus and display in independent claim 20). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). Under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception. Referring to the additional elements provided in the analysis in step one, above, the generic computer hardware does not provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9984574 B2 to Laetz (hereinafter ‘LAETZ’) in view of US 20180356821 A1 to Kentley-Klay et al. (hereinafter ‘KENTLEY-KLAY’).
Claim 1 (Currently Amended)
LAETZ discloses an information processing apparatus (see col 1, ln 12-18; a computer based system) configured to manage an operation plan for one or more automated driving vehicles (see abstract and col 1, ln 20-60, col 4, ln 1-17, & col 3, ln 58-67; permit individuals and groups to plan and manage self-deploying transportation services. Efficient operation of transportation systems), the information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory including a database configured to store one or more users (see col 4, ln 57-col 5, ln 11; historical data on trips by a user can be entered into a computer database), the one or more automated driving vehicles (see col 6, ln 16-42 and col 8, ln 6-20; map times when a vehicle will be occupied and unoccupied. Match users to vehicles based on criteria, such as type of vehicle), one or more operation diagrams (see col 2, ln 59-64 and Figs. 1a-b; a computer generated matrix and city street map for anticipatory deployment of vehicles based on demand values), and one or more locations on a route in each of the one or more operation diagrams, in association with at least one area (see col 4, ln 57-col 5, ln 10 & col 5, ln 55-col 6, ln 8 and Figs. 1a-b; historical data on routes. Include data on times, directions, and routes); and
a controller configured to display, for each of the one or more users, one or more operation diagrams associated with at least one area associated with the user, on a built-in display or a screen of an external device (see Figs 1a-b, Figs. 3a-c, & Fig. 7; routing data is obtained and generated through a user interface. See also claims 6 and 7; a computer system and electronic device).
LAETZ does not specifically disclose, but KENTLEY-KLAY discloses, wherein information on each of the one or more operation diagrams includes information on a condition of the route of each of the one or more operation diagrams, the condition of the route relating to an accident in progress and weather conditions (see claims 17 and 19; avoid the region due to an event comprising degraded traffic or an accident. See also ¶[0152]-[0153] and claims 2 and 11; environmental data includes inclement weather), and
limit, based on the information on the condition of the route, an operation diagram with which each of the one or more automated driving vehicles can be associated (see again claims 17 and 19; avoid the region due to an event comprising degraded traffic or an accident. See also ¶[0147]-[0148]; change navigation of an autonomous vehicle. Divert to a modified path).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. KENTLEY-KLAY discloses coordinated dispatch of a fleet that includes diverting autonomous vehicles due to degraded traffic or an accident. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to divert vehicles as taught by KENTLEY-KLAY in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to optimize fleet management.
Claim 2 (Original)
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
LAETZ further discloses wherein each of the one or more operation diagrams is stored in one-to-one association with one service (see abstract and col 3, ln 39-57; provide transportation services to passengers or cargo. Hire taxis or limousines).
Claim 3 (Currently Amended)
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2.
LAETZ further discloses wherein information on each of the one or more operation diagrams further includes an operation start time and an operation end time (see claim 1; vehicle control information comprising the start point and the end point and the time corresponding to the start point and the end point for the deployed vehicle. Define routes and profiles for vehicles), and
the controller is configured to perform control so that a first automated driving vehicle associated with a first operation diagram cannot be associated with a second operation diagram that partially overlaps the first operation diagram in time period (see col 6, ln 16-65; map a vehicle for times and locations where it is available for use. A travel request may be matched with any vehicle that is available. See also claim 10; modify availability information for a vehicle being committed to a travel request).
Claim 8 (Original)
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2.
LAETZ further discloses the information processing apparatus according to wherein the controller is configured to: determine, based on information on an operation date contained in information on the one service, whether the one service is temporary (see claim 1; vehicle control information comprising the start point and the end point and the time corresponding to the start point and the end point for the deployed vehicle. Define routes and profiles for vehicles); and
when the one service is determined as being temporary, display, on the built-in display or the screen of the external device, the one service in such a manner as to indicate that the one service is temporary (see claim 1 and col 8, ln 66-col 9, ln 41; include start and end locations and times).
Claim 11 (Currently Amended)
LAETZ discloses a method performed by an information processing apparatus (see col 1, ln 12-18; a computer based system) configured to manage an operation plan for one or more automated driving vehicles (see abstract and col 1, ln 20-60, col 4, ln 1-17, & col 3, ln 58-67; permit individuals and groups to plan and manage self-deploying transportation services. Efficient operation of transportation systems), the method comprising: storing, in a database, one or more users (see col 4, ln 57-col 5, ln 11; historical data on trips by a user can be entered into a computer database), the one or more automated driving vehicles (see col 6, ln 16-42 and col 8, ln 6-20; map times when a vehicle will be occupied and unoccupied. Match users to vehicles based on criteria, such as type of vehicle), one or more operation diagrams (see col 2, ln 59-64 and Figs. 1a-b; a computer generated matrix and city street map for anticipatory deployment of vehicles based on demand values), and one or more locations on a route in each of the one or more operation diagrams, in association with at least one area (see col 4, ln 57-col 5, ln 10 & col 5, ln 55-col 6, ln 8 and Figs. 1a-b; historical data on routes. Include data on times, directions, and routes); and
displaying, for each of the one or more users, one or more operation diagrams associated with at least one area associated with the user, on a built-in display or a screen of an external device (see Figs 1a-b, Figs. 3a-c, & Fig. 7; routing data is obtained and generated through a user interface. See also claims 6 and 7; a computer system and electronic device).
LAETZ does not specifically disclose, but KENTLEY-KLAY discloses, wherein information on each of the one or more operation diagrams includes information on a condition of the route of each of the one or more operation diagrams, the condition of the route relating to an accident in progress and weather conditions (see claims 17 and 19; avoid the region due to an event comprising degraded traffic or an accident. See also ¶[0152]-[0153] and claims 2 and 11; environmental data includes inclement weather), and
limiting, based on the information on the condition of the route, an operation diagram with which each of the one or more automated driving vehicles can be associated (see again claims 17 and 19; avoid the region due to an event comprising degraded traffic or an accident. See also ¶[0147]-[0148]; change navigation of an autonomous vehicle. Divert to a modified path).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. KENTLEY-KLAY discloses coordinated dispatch of a fleet that includes diverting autonomous vehicles due to degraded traffic or an accident. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to divert vehicles as taught by KENTLEY-KLAY in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to optimize fleet management.
Claim 12 (Original)
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY discloses the method according to claim 11.
LAETZ additionally discloses further comprising: storing each of the one or more operation diagrams in one-to-one association with one service, information on each of the one or more operation diagrams including an operation start time and an operation end time (see claim 1; vehicle control information comprising the start point and the end point and the time corresponding to the start point and the end point for the deployed vehicle. Define routes and profiles for vehicles); and
performing control so that a first automated driving vehicle associated with a first operation diagram cannot be associated with a second operation diagram that partially overlaps the first operation diagram in time period (see col 6, ln 16-65; map a vehicle for times and locations where it is available for use. A travel request may be matched with any vehicle that is available. See also claim 10; modify availability information for a vehicle being committed to a travel request).
Claim 17 (Original)
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY discloses the method according to claim 11.
LAETZ further discloses further comprising: storing each of the one or more operation diagrams in one-to-one association with one service (see abstract and col 3, ln 39-57; provide transportation services to passengers or cargo. Hire taxis or limousines).
determining, based on information on an operation date contained in information on the one service, whether the one service is temporary (see claim 1; vehicle control information comprising the start point and the end point and the time corresponding to the start point and the end point for the deployed vehicle. Define routes and profiles for vehicles); and
when the one service is determined as being temporary, displaying, on the built-in display or the screen of the external device, the one service in such a manner as to indicate that the one service is temporary (see claim 1 and col 8, ln 66-col 9, ln 41; include start and end locations and times).
Claim 20 (Currently Amended)
LAETZ discloses a system configured to manage an operation plan for one or more automated driving vehicles (see abstract and col 1, ln 20-60, col 4, ln 1-17, & col 3, ln 58-67; permit individuals and groups to plan and manage self-deploying transportation services. Efficient operation of transportation systems), the system comprising: an information processing apparatus (see col 1, ln 12-18; a computer based system); and a terminal apparatus (see col 2, ln 26-38 and Fig. 2; computer systems in communication over a network),
wherein the information processing apparatus includes a database configured to store one or more users (see col 4, ln 57-col 5, ln 11; historical data on trips by a user can be entered into a computer database), the one or more automated driving vehicles (see col 6, ln 16-42 and col 8, ln 6-20; map times when a vehicle will be occupied and unoccupied. Match users to vehicles based on criteria, such as type of vehicle), one or more operation diagrams (see col 2, ln 59-64 and Figs. 1a-b; a computer generated matrix and city street map for anticipatory deployment of vehicles based on demand values), and one or more locations on a route in each of the one or more operation diagrams, in association with at least one area (see col 4, ln 57-col 5, ln 10 & col 5, ln 55-col 6, ln 8 and Figs. 1a-b; historical data on routes. Include data on times, directions, and routes), and
the information processing apparatus or the terminal apparatus is configured to display, on a screen, for each of the one or more users, one or more operation diagrams associated with at least one area associated with the user (see Figs 1a-b, Figs. 3a-c, & Fig. 7; routing data is obtained and generated through a user interface. See also claims 6 and 7; a computer system and electronic device).
LAETZ does not specifically disclose, but KENTLEY-KLAY discloses, wherein information on each of the one or more operation diagrams includes information on a condition of the route of each of the one or more operation diagrams, the condition of the route relating to an accident in progress and weather conditions (see claims 17 and 19; avoid the region due to an event comprising degraded traffic or an accident. See also ¶[0152]-[0153] and claims 2 and 11; environmental data includes inclement weather), and
the information processing apparatus is configured to limit, based on the information on the condition of the route, an operation diagram with which each of the one or more automated driving vehicles can be associated (see again claims 17 and 19; avoid the region due to an event comprising degraded traffic or an accident. See also ¶[0147]-[0148]; change navigation of an autonomous vehicle. Divert to a modified path).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. KENTLEY-KLAY discloses coordinated dispatch of a fleet that includes diverting autonomous vehicles due to degraded traffic or an accident. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to divert vehicles as taught by KENTLEY-KLAY in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to optimize fleet management.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9984574 B2 to LAETZ in view of US 20180356821 A1 to KENTLEY-KLAY et al. as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of US 20190287063 A1 to Skaaksrud et al. (hereinafter ‘SKAAKSRUD’).
Claim 4 (Original)
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
LAETZ further discloses wherein information on each of the one or more automated driving vehicles includes information on an autonomous driving development kit (ADK) installed in each of the one or more automated driving vehicles (see abstract; autonomously controlled vehicles).
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY does not specifically disclose, but SKAAKSRUD discloses, the controller is configured to limit, based on the information on the ADK, an area with which each of the one or more automated driving vehicles can be associated, or an operation diagram with which each of the one or more automated driving vehicles can be associated (see ¶[1102] and [03044]; maintain a location limitation profile with restricted locations. The sensor receives data on restricted locations).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. SKAAKSRUD discloses a modular bot apparatus with a controller that limits movement of an autonomous vehicle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the controller as taught by SKAAKSRUD in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to manage a fleet of autonomous vehicles).
Claim 13 (Original)
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY discloses the method according to claim 11.
LAETZ further discloses wherein information on each of the one or more automated driving vehicles includes information on an autonomous driving development kit (ADK) installed in each of the one or more automated driving vehicles (see abstract; autonomously controlled vehicles).
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY does not specifically disclose, but SKAAKSRUD discloses, the method further comprises limiting, based on the information on the ADK, an area with which each of the one or more automated driving vehicles can be associated, or an operation diagram with which each of the one or more automated driving vehicles can be associated (see ¶[1102] and [03044]; maintain a location limitation profile with restricted locations. The sensor receives data on restricted locations).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. SKAAKSRUD discloses a modular bot apparatus with a controller that limits movement of an autonomous vehicle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the controller as taught by SKAAKSRUD in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to manage a fleet of autonomous vehicles).
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9984574 B2 to LAETZ in view of US 20180356821 A1 to KENTLEY-KLAY et al. as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of US 20190191311 A1 to O’Brien et al. (hereinafter ‘O’BRIEN’).
Claim 6 (Original)
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY does not specifically disclose, but O’BRIEN discloses, wherein information on each of the one or more automated driving vehicles includes information on a status of each of the one or more automated driving vehicles (see ¶[0037] and [0100]; a current status of the autonomous vehicle), and
the controller is configured to limit, based on the information on the status, an area with which each of the one or more automated driving vehicles can be associated, or an operation diagram with which each of the one or more automated driving vehicles can be associated (see again ¶[0100]; select a safe stopping location and avoid features that are not conductive with a stop location when it is determined that movement on a route is not compliant with a current status of a vehicle).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. O’BRIEN discloses autonomous vehicle intrusion counter-measures that includes determining a stop location and features on a route to avoid based on a status of the vehicle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the features to avoid based on status as taught by O’BRIEN in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to plan transportation routes.
Claim 15 (Original)
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY discloses the method according to claim 11.
The combination of LAETZ and KENTLEY-KLAY does not specifically disclose, but O’BRIEN discloses, wherein information on each of the one or more automated driving vehicles includes information on a status of each of the one or more automated driving vehicles (see ¶[0037] and [0100]; a current status of the autonomous vehicle), and
the method comprises limiting, based on the information on the status, an area with which each of the one or more automated driving vehicles can be associated, or an operation diagram with which each of the one or more automated driving vehicles can be associated (see again ¶[0100]; select a safe stopping location and avoid features that are not conductive with a stop location when it is determined that movement on a route is not compliant with a current status of a vehicle).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. O’BRIEN discloses autonomous vehicle intrusion counter-measures that includes determining a stop location and features on a route to avoid based on a status of the vehicle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the features to avoid based on status as taught by O’BRIEN in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to plan transportation routes.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9984574 B2 to LAETZ in view of US 20180356821 A1 to KENTLEY-KLAY et al. and US 20190287063 A1 to SKAAKSRUD et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of US 20220244736 A1 to Konrardy et al. (hereinafter ‘KONRARDY’).
Claim 5 (Original)
The combination of LAETZ, KENTLEY-KLAY, and SKAAKSRUD discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4.
The combination of LAETZ, KENTLEY-KLAY, and SKAAKSRUD does not specifically disclose, but KONRARDY discloses, wherein the controller is configured to, when an area with which an automated driving vehicle is associated has been changed, output, to the built-in display or the screen of the external device, a message to encourage a change of a setting on the ADK of the automated driving vehicle (see ¶[0113], [0234], and [0297]-[0298]; optimize control conditions based on the current road and conditions and risk levels. Recommend settings based on a determination that the settings are not optimal. See also ¶[0130] and [0165]-[0169]; sensor data includes pedestrian traffic at a location).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. KONRARDY discloses vehicle operation feature monitoring for evaluation and effectiveness that includes recommending optimal settings based on factors including location. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the recommendation of optimal settings as taught by KONRARDY in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to manage a fleet of autonomous vehicles.
Claim 14 (Original)
The combination of LAETZ, KENTLEY-KLAY, and SKAAKSRUD discloses the method according to claim 13.
The combination of LAETZ, KENTLEY-KLAY, and SKAAKSRUD does not specifically disclose, but KONRARDY discloses, further comprising, when an area with which an automated driving vehicle is associated has been changed, outputting, to the built-in display or the screen of the external device, a message to encourage a change of a setting on the ADK of the automated driving vehicle (see ¶[0113], [0234], and [0297]-[0298]; optimize control conditions based on the current road and conditions and risk levels. Recommend settings based on a determination that the settings are not optimal. See also ¶[0130] and [0165]-[0169]; sensor data includes pedestrian traffic at a location).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. KONRARDY discloses vehicle operation feature monitoring for evaluation and effectiveness that includes recommending optimal settings based on factors including location. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the recommendation of optimal settings as taught by KONRARDY in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to manage a fleet of autonomous vehicles.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9984574 B2 to LAETZ in view of US 20180356821 A1 to KENTLEY-KLAY et al. and US 20190287063 A1 to SKAAKSRUD et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of US 20240067194 A1 to Slattery et al. (hereinafter ‘SLATTERY’).
Claim 9 (Currently Amended)
The combination of LAETZ, KENTLEY-KLAY, and SKAAKSRUD discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4.
The combination of LAETZ, KENTLEY-KLAY, and SKAAKSRUD does not specifically disclose, but SLATTERY discloses, wherein information on each of the one or more locations includes information on the autonomous driving development kit (ADK) compatible with each of the one or more locations (see ¶[0043]-[0045]; the data processing system 102 can include at least one compatibility detector 110 to determine whether a vehicle controller of the vehicle can autonomously navigate the vehicle in a certain scenario. The compatibility detector 110 can determine that the vehicle is proximate to or within a parking structure based on a determination that a geolocation associated with the vehicle 190 is proximate to a geolocation or within a geofence associated with a parking structure, parking lane, parking space, or the like, or any combination thereof), and
the controller is configured to limit, based on the information on the ADK, an area with which each of the one or more operation diagrams can be associated (see again ¶[0043]-[0045]; the data processing system 102 can include at least one compatibility detector 110 to determine whether a vehicle controller of the vehicle can autonomously navigate the vehicle in a certain scenario. The compatibility detector 110 can determine that the vehicle is proximate to or within a parking structure based on a determination that a geolocation associated with the vehicle 190 is proximate to a geolocation or within a geofence associated with a parking structure, parking lane, parking space, or the like, or any combination thereof).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. SLATTERY discloses autonomous navigation functions of vehicles, where a compatibility detector detects whether the controller can operate in certain scenarios. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the compatibility detector as taught by SLATTERY in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to control a fleet of vehicles.
Claim 10 (Currently Amended)
The combination of LAETZ, KENTLEY-KLAY, and SKAAKSRUD discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4.
The combination of LAETZ, KENTLEY-KLAY, and SKAAKSRUD does not specifically disclose, but SLATTERY discloses, wherein information on each of the one or more locations includes information on the autonomous driving development kit (ADK) compatible with each of the one or more locations (see ¶[0043]-[0045]; the data processing system 102 can include at least one compatibility detector 110 to determine whether a vehicle controller of the vehicle can autonomously navigate the vehicle in a certain scenario. The compatibility detector 110 can determine that the vehicle is proximate to or within a parking structure based on a determination that a geolocation associated with the vehicle 190 is proximate to a geolocation or within a geofence associated with a parking structure, parking lane, parking space, or the like, or any combination thereof), and
the controller is configured to limit, based on the information on the ADK, arrangement of each of the one or more locations on a route of an operation diagram (see abstract and ¶[0003]; control operation of a vehicle in a specific scenario. Navigate in an environment identified by a sensor. See also ¶[0069] and [0072]; identify a parking space that is not occupied or obstructed. Operate within identified boundaries).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. SLATTERY discloses autonomous navigation functions of vehicles, where a compatibility detector detects whether the controller can operate in certain scenarios. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the compatibility detector as taught by SLATTERY in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to control a fleet of vehicles.
Claim 18 (Currently Amended)
The combination of LAETZ, KENTLEY-KLAY, and SKAAKSRUD discloses the method according to claim 13.
The combination of LAETZ, KENTLEY-KLAY, and SKAAKSRUD does not specifically disclose, but SLATTERY discloses, wherein information on each of the one or more locations includes information on the autonomous driving development kit (ADK) compatible with each of the one or more locations (see ¶[0043]-[0045]; the data processing system 102 can include at least one compatibility detector 110 to determine whether a vehicle controller of the vehicle can autonomously navigate the vehicle in a certain scenario. The compatibility detector 110 can determine that the vehicle is proximate to or within a parking structure based on a determination that a geolocation associated with the vehicle 190 is proximate to a geolocation or within a geofence associated with a parking structure, parking lane, parking space, or the like, or any combination thereof), and
the method further comprises limiting, based on the information on the ADK, an area with which each of the one or more operation diagrams can be associated (see again ¶[0043]-[0045]; the data processing system 102 can include at least one compatibility detector 110 to determine whether a vehicle controller of the vehicle can autonomously navigate the vehicle in a certain scenario. The compatibility detector 110 can determine that the vehicle is proximate to or within a parking structure based on a determination that a geolocation associated with the vehicle 190 is proximate to a geolocation or within a geofence associated with a parking structure, parking lane, parking space, or the like, or any combination thereof).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. SLATTERY discloses autonomous navigation functions of vehicles, where a compatibility detector detects whether the controller can operate in certain scenarios. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the compatibility detector as taught by SLATTERY in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to control a fleet of vehicles.
Claim 19 (Currently Amended)
The combination of LAETZ, KENTLEY-KLAY, and SKAAKSRUD discloses the method according to claim 13.
The combination of LAETZ, KENTLEY-KLAY, and SKAAKSRUD does not specifically disclose, but SLATTERY discloses, wherein information on each of the one or more locations includes information on the autonomous driving development kit (ADK) compatible with each of the one or more locations (see ¶[0043]-[0045]; the data processing system 102 can include at least one compatibility detector 110 to determine whether a vehicle controller of the vehicle can autonomously navigate the vehicle in a certain scenario. The compatibility detector 110 can determine that the vehicle is proximate to or within a parking structure based on a determination that a geolocation associated with the vehicle 190 is proximate to a geolocation or within a geofence associated with a parking structure, parking lane, parking space, or the like, or any combination thereof), and
the method further comprises limiting, based on the information on the ADK, arrangement of each of the one or more locations on a route of an operation diagram (see abstract and ¶[0003]; control operation of a vehicle in a specific scenario. Navigate in an environment identified by a sensor. See also ¶[0069] and [0072]; identify a parking space that is not occupied or obstructed. Operate within identified boundaries).
LAETZ discloses deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles that includes fleet management and planning of transportation services. SLATTERY discloses autonomous navigation functions of vehicles, where a compatibility detector detects whether the controller can operate in certain scenarios. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the compatibility detector as taught by SLATTERY in the system executing the method of LAETZ with the motivation to control a fleet of vehicles.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights