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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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:
“a blockage candidate calculation unit…” in claims 1, 4-6.
“a safety instruction generation unit…” in claims 1, 6, 10.
“a safety notification unit…” in claim 1.
“a blockage instruction unit…” in claim 2.
“a blockage control cooperative automatic driving unit…” in claim 12.
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.
Regarding the limitations “a blockage candidate calculation unit…”, “a safety instruction generation unit…”, “a safety notification unit…”, “a blockage instruction unit…”, and “a blockage control cooperative automatic driving unit…” see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10, and 12 and their dependents 3, 7-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to disclose structure corresponding to the claim limitation “a blockage candidate calculation unit…”, “a safety instruction generation unit…”, “a safety notification unit…”, “a blockage instruction unit…”, and “a blockage control cooperative automatic driving unit…” in claims 1-2, 4-6, 10, and 12, and therefore, does not comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10, and 12 and their dependents 3, 7-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “a blockage candidate calculation unit…”, “a safety instruction generation unit…”, “a safety notification unit…”, “a blockage instruction unit…”, and “a blockage control cooperative automatic driving unit…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, these “a blockage candidate calculation unit…”, “a safety instruction generation unit…”, “a safety notification unit…”, “a blockage instruction unit…”, and “a blockage control cooperative automatic driving unit…” are being interpreted as a processor running instructions.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not within one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 15 is directed to a control program which does not fall within one of the four statutory categories.
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) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORIZANE et al. (US 20230123961 A1) in view of YOSHIDA (DE 112007007103 B4).
Regarding claim 1,
MORIZANE teaches:
A control system including a moving body and a control device, the control device including:
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0010] states “Further, the traffic control system according to the present invention is a traffic control system including a traffic control server performing traffic control for interference avoidance of an unmanned vehicle autonomously traveling along a predetermined travel path…”)
a blockage candidate calculation unit that calculates, in a specific moving body, a blockage area on a basis of a position, a travel plan, and a speed of the specific moving body, and calculates a warning area on a basis of the blockage area, , and peripheral information;
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0010] states “a travel-permitted section setting part adapted to set a partial section on the travel path for the unmanned vehicle as a travel-permitted section where the unmanned vehicle is permitted to travel; an interference control part adapted to issue a warning to the manned vehicle to avoid interference between the manned vehicle and the unmanned vehicle traveling in the travel-permitted section, when the manned vehicle approaches the travel-permitted section” Paragraph [0067] further states “The section information DB 317 is configured with a storage device that fixedly stores information, such as an HDD, and stores section information including vehicle identification information to uniquely identify each unmanned dump truck 20-1, position information indicating the travel-permitted section assigned to each unmanned dump truck, and the current position and traveling speed of each unmanned dump truck.” Paragraph [0152] further states “Further, in the warning processing (S1304) of the warning level 3, the interference control part 311c may generate braking instruction information to perform the interference avoidance action, as necessary, in accordance with the calculated distance, and transmit the braking instruction information to the dump truck terminal device 26 of the unmanned dump truck 20-1.”)
a safety instruction generation unit that generates a safety action instruction on a basis of a type of an area calculated by the blockage candidate calculation unit and a type of an intruding moving body intruding into the area; and
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0124-126] states “A “warning level 3” is a level requiring the manned vehicle 70-1 to take the most urgent interference avoidance action (emergency level of avoidance is the highest). This warning level 3 is a state in which the contact with the unmanned dump truck 20-1 is inevitable unless the manned vehicle 70-1 takes the avoidance action. Next, a “warning level 2” is a state in which the manned vehicle 70-1 is interrupting the advancement of the unmanned dump truck 20-1 due to its presence in the next travel-permitted section to be set for the unmanned dump truck 20-1… Finally, a “warning level 1” is a state in which the unmanned dump truck 20-1 passes the side of the manned vehicle 70-1 and the manned vehicle 70-1 is not interrupting the traveling of the unmanned dump truck 20-1; however, it is necessary to properly call attention of the manned vehicle 70-1 to avoid future interference…”)
a safety notification unit that notifies the specific moving body of the safety action instruction,
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0147] states “The interference control part 311c generates the warning information (warning information corresponding to the warning level 3) indicating that there is a possibility that the manned vehicle 70-1 intrudes into the travel-permitted section of the unmanned dump truck 20-1, and the warning information is transmitted and notified to the manned vehicle 70-1 from the server-side communication control part 311e (S1304).”
wherein the specific moving body performs an action on a basis of the safety action instruction notified from the safety notification unit.
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0168] states “Further, the interference control part 311c generates the warning information and generates braking instruction information to cause the unmanned vehicle 20-1 to perform a braking operation, and the server-side communication control part 311e transmits the warning information to the manned vehicle 70-1 and transmits the braking instruction information to the unmanned vehicle 20-1.”)
MORIZANE teaches the calculation of a blockage area and determination of blockage candidate that requires a warning and instruction for a change of action. However, MORIZANE doesn’t teach a braking time of the specific moving body.
YOSHIDA teaches:
, in a specific moving body, on a basis of a position, a travel plan, and a speed of the specific moving body, and calculates , a braking time of the specific moving body, and peripheral information;
(YOSHIDA – On page 13, it states “Embodiment 2 differs from Embodiment 1 in that a driving assistance device 10 transmits request data 42 indicating a braking distance and a braking time, which is a time it takes until braking is completed, the moving speed, and the braking time corresponding to a moving speed, to a mobile body 32 which is a peripheral body and receives an external card 44 according to the request data 42.”)
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA are considered to analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of driving assistance and traffic control. Therefore, 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 MORIZANE with YOSHIDA. It would have been obvious to combine the use of a warning area and blockage area that are used to detect if there is an intruder or obstacle with the use of braking distance and time because the braking distance and time gives the system a safe distance to stop before hitting the intruder. This allows for a safer and more efficient system.
Regarding claim 2,
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA teach the limitations of claim 1.
MORIZANE further teaches:
wherein the control device includes a blockage instruction unit that notifies the specific moving body of the blockage area information, the warning area information, and the moving body information.
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0009] states “a server-side communication control part adapted to transmit, to the unmanned vehicle, section response information indicating the travel-permitted section set, and transmit, to the manned vehicle, warning information for issuing the warning and adapted to receive position information of the manned vehicle calculated by a position calculation device mounted in the manned vehicle and position information of the unmanned vehicle calculated by a position calculation device of the unmanned vehicle;” Paragraph [0168] further states “Further, the interference control part 311c generates the warning information and generates braking instruction information to cause the unmanned vehicle 20-1 to perform a braking operation, and the server-side communication control part 311e transmits the warning information to the manned vehicle 70-1 and transmits the braking instruction information to the unmanned vehicle 20-1.”)
Regarding claim 4,
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA teach the limitations of claim 1.
MORIZANE further teaches:
calculates, as the warning area, an area where the intruding moving body can move outside the blockage area during the braking time on a basis of the blockage area,
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0158] states “FIG. 17 shows an example of screen display of the warning level 2. As shown in FIG. 17, with the screen display of the warning information to the manned vehicle 70-1 in the terminal-side display device 763, the manned vehicle 70-1 is urged to move away from the next travel-permitted section of the unmanned dump truck 20-1 so as to avoid the overlapping between the stop trigger region and the next travel-permitted section candidate. For example, an area 1701 that shows a warning message indicates that the travel-permitted section of the unmanned vehicle (unmanned dump truck) is interrupted, and an area 1702 that shows how to address indicates moving away from the current position. Further, an area 1703 shows the interference state, thereby assisting the determination on the direction in which the movement should be made.”)
MORIZANE teaches the use of a warning area to warn the user when an intruder has entered the area. However, MORIZANE does not teach calculates a braking distance and a braking time on a basis of a position, a travel plan, and a speed of the specific moving body in the specific moving body, and calculates an area based on the travel plan and the braking distance as the blockage area.
YOSHIDA teaches:
wherein the blockage candidate calculation unit
calculates a braking distance and a braking time on a basis of a position, a travel plan, and a speed of the specific moving body in the specific moving body, and calculates an area based on the travel plan and the braking distance as the blockage area, and
(YOSHIDA – On page 17, it states “wherein the request transmission unit (111) transmits the request data indicating a braking distance and a braking time which is a time taken to stop, the braking distance and the braking time corresponding to the moving speed, to the peripheral body, and wherein the map receiving unit (112) receives the external map indicating an obstacle within an area determined from the braking distance and the braking time and at which the obstacle may collide with the mobile body.” On page 6, it further states “The internal map 41 includes an obstacle ID which is an identification element of the obstacle, a detection time at which the obstacle is detected, a position of the obstacle and an accuracy of the position, a speed of the obstacle and an accuracy of the speed, and a size (width, height, and depth) of the obstacle and an accuracy of the size.” On page 13, it further states “Embodiment 2 differs from Embodiment 1 in that a driving assistance device 10 transmits request data 42 indicating a braking distance and a braking time, which is a time it takes until braking is completed, the moving speed, and the braking time corresponding to a moving speed, to a mobile body 32 which is a peripheral body and receives an external card 44 according to the request data 42.”)
calculates, as the warning area, an area where the intruding moving body can move outside the blockage area during the braking time on a basis of the blockage area, the braking time, and a speed of the intruding moving body or an assumed maximum speed of the intruding moving body.
(YOSHIDA – On page 17, it states “wherein the request transmission unit (111) transmits the request data indicating a braking distance and a braking time which is a time taken to stop, the braking distance and the braking time corresponding to the moving speed, to the peripheral body, and wherein the map receiving unit (112) receives the external map indicating an obstacle within an area determined from the braking distance and the braking time and at which the obstacle may collide with the mobile body.” On page 6, “The internal map 41 includes an obstacle ID which is an identification element of the obstacle, a detection time at which the obstacle is detected, a position of the obstacle and an accuracy of the position, a speed of the obstacle and an accuracy of the speed, and a size (width, height, and depth) of the obstacle and an accuracy of the size.” On page 13, it further states “Embodiment 2 differs from Embodiment 1 in that a driving assistance device 10 transmits request data 42 indicating a braking distance and a braking time, which is a time it takes until braking is completed, the moving speed, and the braking time corresponding to a moving speed, to a mobile body 32 which is a peripheral body and receives an external card 44 according to the request data 42.”)
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA are considered to analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of driving assistance and traffic control. Therefore, 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 MORIZANE with YOSHIDA. It would have been obvious to combine the use of a warning area and blockage area that are used to detect if there is an intruder or obstacle with the use of braking distance and time because the braking distance and time gives the system a safe distance to stop before hitting the intruder. This allows for a safer and more efficient system.
Regarding claim 5,
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA teach the limitations of claim 1.
MORIZANE further teaches:
calculates, as the warning area, an area in which the intruding moving body travels outside the blockage area during the braking time on a basis of a position and a travel plan of the 38 intruding moving body, and a speed of the intruding moving body or an assumed maximum speed of the intruding moving body.
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0158] states “FIG. 17 shows an example of screen display of the warning level 2. As shown in FIG. 17, with the screen display of the warning information to the manned vehicle 70-1 in the terminal-side display device 763, the manned vehicle 70-1 is urged to move away from the next travel-permitted section of the unmanned dump truck 20-1 so as to avoid the overlapping between the stop trigger region and the next travel-permitted section candidate. For example, an area 1701 that shows a warning message indicates that the travel-permitted section of the unmanned vehicle (unmanned dump truck) is interrupted, and an area 1702 that shows how to address indicates moving away from the current position. Further, an area 1703 shows the interference state, thereby assisting the determination on the direction in which the movement should be made.”)
MORIZANE teaches a warning area that detects an intruding body. However, MORIZANE does not teach calculates a braking distance and a braking time on a basis of a position, a travel plan, and a speed of the specific moving body in the specific moving body, and calculates an area based on the travel plan and the braking distance as the blockage area.
YOSHIDA teaches:
wherein the blockage candidate calculation unit
calculates a braking distance and a braking time on a basis of a position, a travel plan, and a speed of the specific moving body in the specific moving body, and calculates an area based on the travel plan and the braking distance as the blockage area, and
(YOSHIDA – On page 17, it states “wherein the request transmission unit (111) transmits the request data indicating a braking distance and a braking time which is a time taken to stop, the braking distance and the braking time corresponding to the moving speed, to the peripheral body, and wherein the map receiving unit (112) receives the external map indicating an obstacle within an area determined from the braking distance and the braking time and at which the obstacle may collide with the mobile body.” On page 6, “The internal map 41 includes an obstacle ID which is an identification element of the obstacle, a detection time at which the obstacle is detected, a position of the obstacle and an accuracy of the position, a speed of the obstacle and an accuracy of the speed, and a size (width, height, and depth) of the obstacle and an accuracy of the size.” On page 13, it further states “Embodiment 2 differs from Embodiment 1 in that a driving assistance device 10 transmits request data 42 indicating a braking distance and a braking time, which is a time it takes until braking is completed, the moving speed, and the braking time corresponding to a moving speed, to a mobile body 32 which is a peripheral body and receives an external card 44 according to the request data 42.”)
calculates, as the warning area, an area in which the intruding moving body travels outside the blockage area during the braking time on a basis of a position and a travel plan of the intruding moving body, and a speed of the intruding moving body or an assumed maximum speed of the intruding moving body.
(YOSHIDA – On page 17, it states “wherein the request transmission unit (111) transmits the request data indicating a braking distance and a braking time which is a time taken to stop, the braking distance and the braking time corresponding to the moving speed, to the peripheral body, and wherein the map receiving unit (112) receives the external map indicating an obstacle within an area determined from the braking distance and the braking time and at which the obstacle may collide with the mobile body.” On page 6, “The internal map 41 includes an obstacle ID which is an identification element of the obstacle, a detection time at which the obstacle is detected, a position of the obstacle and an accuracy of the position, a speed of the obstacle and an accuracy of the speed, and a size (width, height, and depth) of the obstacle and an accuracy of the size.” On page 13, it further states “Embodiment 2 differs from Embodiment 1 in that a driving assistance device 10 transmits request data 42 indicating a braking distance and a braking time, which is a time it takes until braking is completed, the moving speed, and the braking time corresponding to a moving speed, to a mobile body 32 which is a peripheral body and receives an external card 44 according to the request data 42.”)
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA are considered to analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of driving assistance and traffic control. Therefore, 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 MORIZANE with YOSHIDA. It would have been obvious to combine the use of a warning area and blockage area that are used to detect if there is an intruder or obstacle with the use of braking distance and time because the braking distance and time gives the system a safe distance to stop before hitting the intruder. This allows for a safer and more efficient system.
Regarding claim 6,
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA teach the limitations of claim 1.
MORIZANE further teaches:
wherein the safety instruction generation unit generates a safety action instruction on a basis of a rule in addition to the type of the area calculated by the blockage candidate calculation unit and the type of the intruding moving body intruding into the area.
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0124-126] states “A “warning level 3” is a level requiring the manned vehicle 70-1 to take the most urgent interference avoidance action (emergency level of avoidance is the highest). This warning level 3 is a state in which the contact with the unmanned dump truck 20-1 is inevitable unless the manned vehicle 70-1 takes the avoidance action. Next, a “warning level 2” is a state in which the manned vehicle 70-1 is interrupting the advancement of the unmanned dump truck 20-1 due to its presence in the next travel-permitted section to be set for the unmanned dump truck 20-1… Finally, a “warning level 1” is a state in which the unmanned dump truck 20-1 passes the side of the manned vehicle 70-1 and the manned vehicle 70-1 is not interrupting the traveling of the unmanned dump truck 20-1; however, it is necessary to properly call attention of the manned vehicle 70-1 to avoid future interference…”)
Regarding claim 7,
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA teach the limitations of claim 1.
MORIZANE further teaches:
wherein the type of the moving body is classified into at least a moving body capable of controlling an action and a moving body incapable of controlling an action.
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0009] states “To solve the aforementioned problem, the traffic control server according to the present invention is a traffic control server performing traffic control for interference control of an unmanned vehicle autonomously traveling along a predetermined travel path in a mine and a manned vehicle with a driver on board traveling in the mine, the traffic control server wirelessly communicating with and connected to each of the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle…”)
Regarding claim 9,
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA teach the limitations of claim 6.
MORIZANE further teaches:
wherein the rule includes road information including at least one of a sidewalk, a separation zone, a crosswalk, a plurality of lanes, or a work area.
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0001] states “a technique of suppressing interference between an unmanned vehicle and a manned vehicle traveling on a work site.”)
Regarding claim 10,
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA teach the limitations of claim 1.
MORIZANE further teaches:
wherein the intruding moving body in the safety instruction generation unit means a moving body that has intruded into the blockage area or the warning area of the specific moving body, and the specific moving body in the safety instruction generation unit means a moving body that has been intruded into the blockage area or the warning area by the intruding moving body.
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0023] states “FIG. 9D shows a state of the manned vehicle intruding into the travel-permitted section of the unmanned dump truck;” Paragraph [0124] further states “A “warning level 3” is a level requiring the manned vehicle 70-1 to take the most urgent interference avoidance action (emergency level of avoidance is the highest). This warning level 3 is a state in which the contact with the unmanned dump truck 20-1 is inevitable unless the manned vehicle 70-1 takes the avoidance action.)
Regarding claim 12,
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA teach the limitations of claim 1.
MORIZANE further teaches:
wherein the specific moving body includes a blockage control cooperative automatic driving unit that does not travel outside the blockage area notified from the control device.
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0009] states “a travel-permitted section setting part adapted to set a partial section on the travel path for the unmanned vehicle as a travel-permitted section where the unmanned vehicle is permitted to travel” Note: The examiner interprets the unmanned vehicle having a travel-permitted section as only traveling within that section and therefore does not travel outside of that area.)
Regarding claim 13,
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA teach the limitations of claim 1.
MORIZANE further teaches:
wherein the specific moving body calculates an avoidance trajectory on a basis of the moving body information, the blockage area information, and the warning area information.
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0009] states “a server-side communication control part adapted to transmit, to the unmanned vehicle, section response information indicating the travel-permitted section set, and transmit, to the manned vehicle, warning information for issuing the warning and adapted to receive position information of the manned vehicle calculated by a position calculation device mounted in the manned vehicle and position information of the unmanned vehicle calculated by a position calculation device of the unmanned vehicle;” Paragraph [0168] further states “Further, the interference control part 311c generates the warning information and generates braking instruction information to cause the unmanned vehicle 20-1 to perform a braking operation, and the server-side communication control part 311e transmits the warning information to the manned vehicle 70-1 and transmits the braking instruction information to the unmanned vehicle 20-1.”)
Regarding claim 14, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15, it recites a control program with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 3, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORIZANE et al. (US 20230123961 A1) in view of YOSHIDA (DE 112017007103 B4) and further in view of XIANG et al. (CN 115884908 A).
Regarding claim 3,
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA teach the limitations of claim 1.
MORIZANE further teaches:
wherein the control device includes instruction to the specific moving body when a position of the intruding moving body after an arbitrary time is positioned in the blockage area or the warning area of the specific moving body in a path on which the specific moving body moves.
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0158] states “For example, an area 1701 that shows a warning message indicates that the travel-permitted section of the unmanned vehicle (unmanned dump truck) is interrupted, and an area 1702 that shows how to address indicates moving away from the current position. Further, an area 1703 shows the interference state, thereby assisting the determination on the direction in which the movement should be made.”)
MORIZANE teaches giving a warning and a control instruction for a vehicle when another vehicle moves into its path. However, MORIZANE and YOSHIDA do not teach a speed adjuster that outputs a speed instruction.
XIANG teaches:
wherein the control device includes a speed adjuster that outputs a speed instruction to the specific moving body when a position of the intruding moving body after an arbitrary time is positioned in the blockage area or the warning area of the specific moving body in a path on which the specific moving body moves.
(XIANG – On page 9, it states “The path generating section 27 calculates, for example, more than one path as a short-term driving plan. For example, the path generating part 27 is also included for calculating the speed of the speed adjustment in the path of the acceleration of the information as a short term travel plan.” On page 11, it further states “The automatic driving function section 29 performs automatic driving along the path confirmation section 28 to make the driving plan for automatic driving. under the condition of the driving plan is the driving of the path, performing automatic driving along the path. when the driving plan is parking, reducing speed, automatically parking and decelerating. automatic driving function part 29 according to the driving plan output from the path confirming part 28 for automatic driving, so as to avoid the vehicle and the peripheral object near the automatic driving.”)
MORIZANE, YOSHIDA, and XIANG are considered to analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of driving assistance and traffic control. Therefore, 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 MORIZANE and YOSHIDA with XIANG. It would have been obvious to combine the use of a warning area and blockage area that are used to detect if there is an intruder or obstacle using the braking distance and time with a speed adjuster because the speed adjustment allows for the system to make small adjustments based on an intruder without have to brake entirely or change paths. This allows for more options for the user and a more efficient system.
Regarding claim 8,
MORIZANE and YOSHIDA teach the limitations of claim 1.
However, MORIZANE and YOSHIDA do not teach the limitations of claim 8.
XIANG teaches:
wherein the type of the moving body is classified into an automatic driving vehicle, a non-automatic driving vehicle, and a pedestrian.
(XIANG – On page 2, it states “The path confirming device claimed here is a path generating part for generating a driving plan for driving the vehicle by automatic driving, and a path confirming device used by the vehicle of the driving control part for controlling the running of the vehicle according to the generated driving plan” On page 6, it further states “The peripheral monitoring sensor 35 is an autonomous sensor that monitors the periphery of the vehicle. As an example, the peripheral monitoring sensor 35 detects the pedestrian, the animal except the human, the vehicle other than the vehicle for moving the mobile body, and guardrail, curb stone, tree, the object on the periphery of the stationary object such as falling object and so on. besides, it also detects the road mark such as running dividing line of the periphery of the vehicle.”
MORIZANE, YOSHIDA, and XIANG are considered to analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of driving assistance and traffic control. Therefore, 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 MORIZANE and YOSHIDA with XIANG. It would have been obvious to combine the use of a warning area and blockage area that are used to detect if there is an intruder or obstacle using the braking distance and time with the detection of pedestrians as the intruder because the system will be able to detect not only other vehicles but pedestrians that could be using a crosswalk near the vehicle. This allows for a safer system for those around the vehicle.
Regarding claim 11,
MORIZANE, YOSHIDA and XIANG teach the limitations of claim 8.
MORIZANE further teaches:
wherein the pedestrian or the manned vehicle has a device having a function of notifying intruding moving body notification information notified from the control device by at least one of sound, light, vibration, or video.
(MORIZANE – Paragraph [0082] states “The warning device 768 may be of any type of device as long as it issues a warning having an effect on the five senses of the operator, such as a speaker making a warning sound or delivering a warning message, or a flashing light.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS 9-2.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights