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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined below.
Abstract
The abstract is objected to. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words (emphasis added). The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without significantly more. The rejected claim(s) is/are shown below with formatting and annotations that will be referred to throughout the analysis. Abstract ideas are in bold, followed by the abstract idea grouping in brackets. Additional elements are underlined, followed by the category of additional elements for which the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the category being listed in brackets.
Claim 1
An autonomous travel system comprising
a controller for controlling a conveyance vehicle that can autonomously travel along a travel route ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer], wherein
the controller is configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer]
to compute an arrival predicted time that is a time required for the conveyance vehicle to arrive at a position of an obstacle, on a basis of the position of the obstacle, and a position and a travelling speed of the conveyance vehicle when the obstacle is positioned in a travel lane of the conveyance vehicle [mathematical concept],
to compute a predicted position of another vehicle after the arrival predicted time elapses on a basis of a position and a travelling speed of the another vehicle present around the conveyance vehicle and the arrival predicted time [mathematical concept],
to determine whether or not the another vehicle is present in a vicinity of the obstacle after the arrival predicted time elapses on a basis of the position of the obstacle and the predicted position of the another vehicle [mental process],
to set the travel lane as an avoidance area and not to set a lane adjacent to the travel lane as an avoidance area when it is determined that the another vehicle is present in the vicinity of the obstacle after the arrival predicted time elapses [mental process],
to set both the travel lane and the lane adjacent to the travel lane as an avoidance area when it is determined that the another vehicle is not present in the vicinity of the obstacle after the arrival predicted time elapses [mental process], and
to generate an avoidance route as the travel route for the conveyance vehicle to avoid the obstacle in the avoidance area on a basis of the position of the conveyance vehicle, the position of the obstacle, and the avoidance area [mental process].
Claim 2
The autonomous travel system according to claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] to
determine whether or not the conveyance vehicle can pass a side of the obstacle without contacting the obstacle on a basis of the position of the obstacle, a lateral width of the obstacle, and the avoidance area [mental process],
determine whether or not the conveyance vehicle can pass above the obstacle without contacting the obstacle on a basis of the position of the obstacle, the lateral width and a height of the obstacle, and the avoidance area [mental process],
**stop the conveyance vehicle before the obstacle as viewed from the conveyance vehicle when it is determined that the conveyance vehicle cannot pass both a side of and above the obstacle without contacting the obstacle,
generate a bypass route passing a side of the obstacle as a candidate of the avoidance route when it is determined that the conveyance vehicle can pass a side of the obstacle without contacting the obstacle [mental process], and
generate a straddling route straddling the obstacle as a candidate of the avoidance route when it is determined that the conveyance vehicle can pass above the obstacle without contacting the obstacle [mental process].
**Examiner notes that while this limitation suggests bringing the claim into eligibility, the structure of the claim indicates this limitation as being conditional upon the determinations of the first and second limitation. The stopping of the conveyance vehicle is not guaranteed to occur, and the bypass and straddling routes may be generated instead if both determinations are positive. Since it is not guaranteed that the vehicle is stopped, claim 2 does not necessarily bring the claimed invention into eligibility.
Claim 3
The autonomous travel system according to claim 2, wherein
the controller is configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] to
compute a first passage required time that is a time required for the conveyance vehicle to pass the bypass route and a second passage required time that is a time required for the conveyance vehicle to pass the straddling route, when both the bypass route and the straddling route are generated [mathematical concept],
set the bypass route as the avoidance route when the first passage required time is shorter than the second passage required time [mental process], and
set the straddling route as the avoidance route when the second passage required time is shorter than the first passage required time [mental process].
Claim 4
The autonomous travel system according to claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer]
to determine whether travelling priority of the conveyance vehicle is higher or lower than travelling priority of the another vehicle [mental process],
to set the travel lane as an avoidance area and not to set the lane adjacent to the travel lane as an avoidance area when it is determined that the another vehicle is present in the vicinity of the obstacle after the arrival predicted time elapses and it is determined that the travelling priority of the conveyance vehicle is lower than the travelling priority of the another vehicle [mental process], and
to set both the travel lane and the lane adjacent to the travel lane as an avoidance area when it is determined that the another vehicle is present in the vicinity of the obstacle after the arrival predicted time elapses and it is determined that the travelling priority of the conveyance vehicle is higher than the travelling priority of the another vehicle [mental process].
Claim 5
The autonomous travel system according to claim 4, wherein
the controller is configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] to
determine that the travelling priority of the conveyance vehicle is higher than the travelling priority of the another vehicle when a loading amount of the conveyance vehicle is larger than a loading amount of the another vehicle [mental process].
Claim 6
The autonomous travel system according to claim 4, wherein
the controller is configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] to
acquire information on a gradient of the travel lane of the conveyance vehicle [insignificant extra-solution activity – receiving data],
determine whether or not an upward gradient is present within a predetermined distance from the obstacle on a back side of the obstacle as viewed from the conveyance vehicle on a basis of the acquired information on the gradient [mental process], and
determine that the travelling priority of the conveyance vehicle is higher than the travelling priority of the another vehicle when it is determined that the upward gradient is present [mental process].
Claim 7
The autonomous travel system according to claim 4, wherein
the controller is configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] to
acquire information on an operation state of a mining machine for loading an object to be loaded into the conveyance vehicle [insignificant extra-solution activity – receiving data],
determine whether a load state of the conveyance vehicle is an empty state or a loaded state [mental process], and
set the travelling priority of the conveyance vehicle higher than that in a case where a condition is not satisfied, when the condition including that the operation state of the mining machine is a standby state in which loading work is not performed and that the load state of the conveyance vehicle is the empty state is satisfied [mental process].
Claim 8
The autonomous travel system according to claim 4, wherein
the controller is configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] to
determine whether the conveyance vehicle is a manned vehicle or an unmanned vehicle [mental process], and
set the travelling priority of the conveyance vehicle higher than that in a case where it is determined that the conveyance vehicle is an unmanned vehicle, when it is determined that the conveyance vehicle is a manned vehicle [mental process].
Claim 9
The autonomous travel system according to claim 4, wherein
the controller ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] transmits, to the another vehicle, a control command for prohibiting intrusion into an area nearer the conveyance vehicle side relative to an end point of the avoidance route until the conveyance vehicle arrives at the end point of the avoidance route [insignificant extra-solution activity – transmitting data], when it is determined that the another vehicle is present in the vicinity of the obstacle after the arrival predicted time elapses and it is determined that the travelling priority of the conveyance vehicle is higher than the travelling priority of the another vehicle [mental process].
Claim 10
The autonomous travel system according to claim 3, wherein
the controller is configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] to
set a target value of the travelling speed of the conveyance vehicle in the straddling route to be smaller as the height of the obstacle is higher [mental process], and
set the target value of the travelling speed of the conveyance vehicle in the straddling route to be smaller as the lateral width of the obstacle is larger [mental process].
Step 1
The claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The analysis proceeds to step 2A, prong I.
Step 2A, Prong I
The claims are analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. See MPEP 2106(A)(11)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c).
Examiner asserts that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute(s) a mathematical concept, a certain method of organizing human activity, and/or a mental process because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation(s) can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to step 2A, prong II.
Step 2A, Prong II
The claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims, as a whole, integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(11)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional element(s) merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” See MPEP 2106.05f-h.
The additional element(s) of the claim at issue do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the additional element(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the element(s) individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional element(s), when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05. The analysis proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B
Step 2B requires that any additional element(s) determined to be insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional element(s) are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, which would result in the claim amounting to an inventive concept (in other words, "significantly more" than the abstract idea). Such element(s) in the claims being considered is/are listed below, each followed by the support showing that the element is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP 2106.05dII for more details):
acquire information on a gradient of the travel lane of the conveyance vehicle; acquire information on an operation state of a mining machine for loading an object to be loaded into the conveyance vehicle; and transmits, to the another vehicle, a control command for prohibiting intrusion into an area nearer the conveyance vehicle side relative to an end point of the avoidance route until the conveyance vehicle arrives at the end point of the avoidance route - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)).
Thus, the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, Examiner determines that claims 1-10 do not qualify as eligible subject matter, and the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Examiner notes that 0112 of the specification recite(s) additional elements that do result in the claims integrating the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception and amounting to an inventive concept (aka "significantly more"). Amending the independent claim(s) to include the subject matter of 0112, specifically stopping the own vehicle before the obstacle as viewed from the own vehicle when it is determined that the own vehicle cannot pass both the side of and above the obstacle without contacting the obstacle, would be sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101, but would be allowable if the rejections were overcome. The closest prior art of record are JP2020-152200 and WO2016/139757, which both disclose collision avoidance systems for autonomous vehicles. However, the aforementioned claims recite subject matter directed towards at least the following subject matter: autonomous travel system comprising a controller for controlling a conveyance vehicle that can autonomously travel along a travel route, wherein the controller is configured to compute an arrival predicted time that is a time required for the conveyance vehicle to arrive at a position of an obstacle, on a basis of the position of the obstacle, and a position and a travelling speed of the conveyance vehicle when the obstacle is positioned in a travel lane of the conveyance vehicle, to compute a predicted position of another vehicle after the arrival predicted time elapses on a basis of a position and a travelling speed of the another vehicle present around the conveyance vehicle and the arrival predicted time, to determine whether or not the another vehicle is present in a vicinity of the obstacle after the arrival predicted time elapses on a basis of the position of the obstacle and the predicted position of the another vehicle, to set the travel lane as an avoidance area and not to set a lane adjacent to the travel lane as an avoidance area when it is determined that the another vehicle is present in the vicinity of the obstacle after the arrival predicted time elapses, to set both the travel lane and the lane adjacent to the travel lane as an avoidance area when it is determined that the another vehicle is not present in the vicinity of the obstacle after the arrival predicted time elapses, and to generate an avoidance route as the travel route for the conveyance vehicle to avoid the obstacle in the avoidance area on a basis of the position of the conveyance vehicle, the position of the obstacle, and the avoidance area. While relevant to the claims, the prior art does not provide an adequate basis for rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 or 103 because a rejection based on the found prior art would only being made based on impermissible hindsight, and the prior art found does not sufficiently teach nor suggest the limitations as claimed, hence the allowability of the claims. Examiner notes that amendment to the claims resulting in a change of scope may result in requirement of an updated search.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner KRISHNAN RAMESH whose telephone number is (571)272-6407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Abby Flynn, can be reached at (571)272-9855. 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.
/KRISHNAN RAMESH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
