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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6 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 1 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the vehicle” in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected for depending on a previously rejected base claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system for generating a travel path (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A travel path generation device comprising:
a map storage unit that stores map information for distinguishing a plurality of lanes in which traveling directions of vehicles are the same;
a section determination unit that determines, based on the map information, a non-lane section that is a road section in which the plurality of lanes are not divided and a lane section that is a road section in which the plurality of lanes are divided [mental process/step]; and
a path generation unit that generates a travel path of the vehicle [mental process/step],
wherein the section determination unit determines one lane section, the non-lane section located ahead in a traveling direction with respect to the one lane section, and another lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the non-lane section [mental process/step], and
the path generation unit
calculates the number of intersections with other lane links in each of a plurality of lane links connecting each lane of the one lane section and each lane of the other lane section [mental process/step], and
generates the travel path in the non-lane section based on the calculated number of intersections [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine…,” “generate…,” and “calculate…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement of determining a route. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(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 elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A travel path generation device comprising:
a map storage unit that stores map information for distinguishing a plurality of lanes in which traveling directions of vehicles are the same [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
a section determination unit [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] that determines, based on the map information, a non-lane section that is a road section in which the plurality of lanes are not divided and a lane section that is a road section in which the plurality of lanes are divided; and
a path generation unit [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] that generates a travel path of the vehicle,
wherein the section determination unit [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] determines one lane section, the non-lane section located ahead in a traveling direction with respect to the one lane section, and another lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the non-lane section, and
the path generation unit [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]
calculates the number of intersections with other lane links in each of a plurality of lane links connecting each lane of the one lane section and each lane of the other lane section, and
generates the travel path in the non-lane section based on the calculated number of intersections.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “stores map information…,” the examiner submits that this limitations is an insignificant extra-solution activity that merely use a computer (travel path generation device) to perform the process. In particular, the storing of map data is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering surrounding road data for use in the evaluating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the “travel path generation device,” “section determination unit,” and “path generation unit” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processor components performing a generic computer function of generating a route for a vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a 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. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “travel path generation device,” “section determination unit,” and “path generation unit” to perform the “determine…,” “generate…,” and “calculate…” steps amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, regarding the additional limitation of “stores map information…,” the examiner submits that this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Additional Claims
Independent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as controlling a vehicle to travel along the generated travel path. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-6 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nanbada et al. (JP Publication No. 2020008681; hereinafter Nanbada).
Regarding claim 1, Nanbada teaches a travel path generation device comprising: a map storage unit that stores map information for distinguishing a plurality of lanes in which traveling directions of vehicles are the same (Nanbada: Par. 14; i.e., The data structure according to one embodiment of the present invention is a map data structure that includes link information about the intersection in-intersection link that connects the link indicating the entry lane and the link indicating the exit lane at an intersection; Par. 21; i.e., the map data storage medium according to one embodiment of the present invention stores map data having the aforementioned data structure);
a section determination unit that determines, based on the map information, a non-lane section that is a road section in which the plurality of lanes are not divided and a lane section that is a road section in which the plurality of lanes are divided (Nanbada: Par. 29; i.e., This map data for autonomous driving consists of lane network data represented by lane-level links; Par. 34; i.e., The intersection I shown in Figure 3 has three lanes: the lane entering from the right side of intersection I is three lanes: lane links L1, L2, and L3; the lane exiting to the left side from intersection I is two lanes (lane links L7 and L8); as displayed in Figure 3, the map data is used to determine lane links L1, L2, and L3 which are divided, and a non-lane section in the middle of the intersection between the entrance and exit lanes);
and a path generation unit that generates a travel path of the vehicle (Nanbada: Par. 22; i.e., the path search device according to one embodiment of the present invention includes a path search unit that searches for a route from a predetermined point to the destination),
wherein the section determination unit determines one lane section, the non-lane section located ahead in a traveling direction with respect to the one lane section, and another lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the non-lane section (Nanbada: Par. 34; i.e., The intersection I shown in Figure 3 has three lanes: the lane entering from the right side of intersection I is three lanes: lane links L1, L2, and L3; the lane exiting to the left side from intersection I is two lanes (lane links L7 and L8); as displayed in Figure 3, lane links L1, L2, and L3 make up the first lane section and L7 and L8 make up the other lane section, and a non-lane section in the middle of the intersection between the entrance and exit lanes),
and the path generation unit calculates the number of intersections with other lane links in each of a plurality of lane links connecting each lane of the one lane section and each lane of the other lane section, and generates the travel path in the non-lane section based on the calculated number of intersections (Nanbada: Par. 35; i.e., as shown in Figure 4, a link (intra-intersection link) will be formed that connects lane links L1–L3 (the entry lane link to Intersection I) and the lane links L4, L5, L7, L8, L10, and L11 (the exit lane link); Par. 38; i.e., identify each of the links within the intersection; Par. 44; i.e., The second setting criterion is based on the number of intersections between the target intersection links and other intersection links; Par. 58; i.e., prioritize passing through links with fewer intersections at Intersection I; Par. 83; i.e., selects the intersection link as the driving route among the intersection link information based on … information indicating priority; the travel path is selected based on the intersection link with the least intersections with other links).
Regarding claim 2, Nanbada teaches the travel path generation device according to claim 1. Nanbada further teaches wherein the path generation unit generates the travel path in the non-lane section in accordance with a lane link in which the calculated number of intersections is the smallest (Nanbada: Par. 44; i.e., The second setting criterion is based on the number of intersections between the target intersection links and other intersection links; Par. 58; i.e., prioritize passing through links with fewer intersections at Intersection I; Par. 83; i.e., selects the intersection link as the driving route among the intersection link information based on … information indicating priority; the travel path is selected based on the intersection link with the least intersections with other links).
Regarding claim 6, Nanbada teaches a travel path generation device comprising: a map storage unit that stores map information for distinguishing a plurality of lanes in which traveling directions of vehicles are the same (Nanbada: Par. 14; i.e., The data structure according to one embodiment of the present invention is a map data structure that includes link information about the intersection in-intersection link that connects the link indicating the entry lane and the link indicating the exit lane at an intersection; Par. 21; i.e., the map data storage medium according to one embodiment of the present invention stores map data having the aforementioned data structure);
a section determination unit that determines a non-lane section based on the map information, the non-lane section being a road section in which the plurality of lanes are not divided (Nanbada: Par. 29; i.e., this map data for autonomous driving consists of lane network data represented by lane-level links; Par. 34; i.e., The intersection I shown in Figure 3 has three lanes: the lane entering from the right side of intersection I is three lanes: lane links L1, L2, and L3; the lane exiting to the left side from intersection I is two lanes (lane links L7 and L8); as displayed in Figure 3, the map data is used to determine lane links L1, L2, and L3 which are divided, and a non-lane section in the middle of the intersection between the entrance and exit lanes);
and a path generation unit that generates a travel path of the vehicle (Nanbada: Par. 22; i.e., the path search device according to one embodiment of the present invention includes a path search unit that searches for a route from a predetermined point to the destination),
wherein the path generation unit generates the travel path in the non-lane section to pass through a left end of the non-lane section in a case where a road including the non-lane section is left side traffic and to pass through a right end of the non-lane section in a case where the road is right side traffic (Nanbada: Par. 42-43; i.e., Link L34, which connects the approach lane link L3 and the exit lane link L4, and Link L35, which connects the approach lane link L3 and the exit lane link L5, are shown… priority 5a5 is set so that link L34 takes precedence over link L35; the road is left side traffic and passes on the left link L34 of the non-lane section because it is the shortest route, and if the road was right side traffic, the vehicle would pass through a right end of the non-lane section because it would be the shortest route).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanbada and further in view of Hoshina et al. (JP Publication No. 2018106381; hereinafter Hoshina).
Regarding claim 3, Nanbada teaches the travel path generation device according to claim 2. Nanbada further teaches the path generation unit generates the travel path in the non-lane section in accordance with the lane link in which the number of intersections is the smallest among a plurality of lane links connecting each lane of the one lane section (Nanbada: Par. 44; i.e., The second setting criterion is based on the number of intersections between the target intersection links and other intersection links; Par. 58; i.e., prioritize passing through links with fewer intersections at Intersection I; Par. 83; i.e., selects the intersection link as the driving route among the intersection link information based on … information indicating priority; the travel path is selected based on the intersection link with the least intersections with other links).
Nanbada does not explicitly teach wherein, in a case where a target lane on which the vehicle is to travel in the other lane section is determined in advance in accordance with a destination of the vehicle, the path generation unit generates the travel path in the non-lane section in accordance with the lane link connecting the one lane section and the target lane.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hoshina teaches wherein, in a case where a target lane on which the vehicle is to travel in the other lane section is determined in advance in accordance with a destination of the vehicle, the path generation unit generates the travel path in the non-lane section in accordance with the lane link connecting the one lane section and the target lane (Hoshina: Par. 56; i.e., the control unit 2 recognizes that the planned route 23 is set along the left branch path 20L by the navigation device 9; Par. 75; i.e., the road 20 in which vehicle 10 is driving branches in two directions in section 20c… if the control unit 2 passes through the leftmost toll gate gate 21d, In section 20c, which is farther from the toll gate position 21, the vehicle 10 can be driven straight to reach the left branch road 20L… Control Unit 2 selects the leftmost toll gate gate 21d).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the path generation device of Nanbada to have further incorporated wherein, in a case where a target lane on which the vehicle is to travel in the other lane section is determined in advance in accordance with a destination of the vehicle, the path generation unit generates the travel path in the non-lane section in accordance with the lane link connecting the one lane section and the target lane, as taught by Hoshina. Doing so would allow the vehicle to limit the change of steering angle along the planned route (Hoshina: Par. 74; i.e., allows the vehicle 10 to change its steering angle less when driving the vehicle 10 along the planned route farther from the toll gate).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanbada and further in view of Tojo et al. (JP Publication No. 2018151287; hereinafter Tojo).
Regarding claim 4, Nanbada teaches the path generation device according to claim 2. Nanbada further teaches the path generation unit generates the travel path in the non-lane section based on the lane link in which the number of intersections is smallest (Nanbada: Par. 44; i.e., The second setting criterion is based on the number of intersections between the target intersection links and other intersection links; Par. 58; i.e., prioritize passing through links with fewer intersections at Intersection I; Par. 83; i.e., selects the intersection link as the driving route among the intersection link information based on … information indicating priority; the travel path is selected based on the intersection link with the least intersections with other links).
Nanbada does not teach a gate position storage unit that stores position information of an automated gate in which a toll payment and a gate opening/closing operation are automated among a plurality of gates installed in a tollgate, wherein the section determination unit determines the plurality of gates as the one lane section or the other lane section, and the path generation unit generates the travel path in the non-lane section based on the position information of the automated gate closest to the lane link.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tojo teaches a gate position storage unit that stores position information of an automated gate in which a toll payment and a gate opening/closing operation are automated among a plurality of gates installed in a tollgate, wherein the section determination unit determines the plurality of gates as the one lane section or the other lane section (Tojo: Par. 33; i.e., position information … is temporarily stored in the data table for each gate 6a~6e; Par. 43; i.e., Priority is given to gates with the gate type being "ETC (Electronic Toll Collection System) only,"; Par. 66; i.e., automatically resumes operation as soon as the bar opens to pass through the gate; Par. 63; i.e., if the lane dividing line for entering the gate is recognized… LTC control based on these recognizes the entry into the target gate), and the path generation unit generates the travel path in the non-lane section based on the position information of the automated gate closest to the lane link (Tojo: Par. 39; i.e., the less lateral movement (steering amount) required, the higher the comfort; Par. 45; i.e., each toll gate 6a-6e is individually evaluated… the highest-rated gate will be selected as the target gate; Par. 47; i.e., Once a target gate is selected, a target entry path for entering that gate is generated based on the location information of the target gate; the path is generated based on the gate which is closest, i.e., requiring the least lateral movement).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the path generation device of Nanbada to have further incorporated a gate position storage unit that stores position information of an automated gate in which a toll payment and a gate opening/closing operation are automated among a plurality of gates installed in a tollgate, wherein the section determination unit determines the plurality of gates as the one lane section or the other lane section, and the path generation unit generates the travel path in the non-lane section based on the position information of the automated gate closest to the lane link, as taught by Tojo. Doing so would allow for improved traffic flow and reduced driver burden (Tojo: Par. 72; i.e., enabling easy and reliable selection of a preferred target gate. This is advantageous for reducing the burden on drivers and the impact on traffic flow).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanbada in view of Tojo and Hoshina, and further in view of Kume et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0249924; hereinafter Kume).
Regarding claim 5, Nanbada in view of Tojo teaches the travel path generation device according to claim 4 but does not explicitly teach wherein the section determination unit determines a first lane section, a first non-lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the first lane section, a second lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the first non-lane section, a second non-lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the second lane section, and a third lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the second non-lane section, and determines the plurality of gates as the second lane section, and the path generation unit generates the travel path in the first non-lane section in accordance with a first lane link and generates the travel path in the second non-lane section in accordance with a second lane link.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hoshina teaches wherein the section determination unit determines a first lane section, a first non-lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the first lane section, a second lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the first non-lane section, a second non-lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the second lane section, and a third lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the second non-lane section, and determines the plurality of gates as the second lane section (Hoshina: Par. 15; i.e., The external environment recognition device 3 recognizes the shape of the road ahead of vehicle 10 by detecting linear or dashed markings provided along the driving lane on the road by image recognition; Par. 32; i.e., a process that recognizes that vehicle 10 has entered the widening section 20b from the running section 20a; Par. 31; i.e., the symbol 21 indicates the location information indicating the presence of a toll booth gate; Par. 55; i.e., the planned route 23 is set along the left branch path 20L; as displayed in Figure 7, 20a is the first lane section, the widening section 20b is the first non-lane section, the gates 21 are the second lane section, 20c is the second non-lane section, and 20L is the third lane section), and the path generation unit generates the travel path in the first non-lane section in accordance with a first lane link and generates the travel path in the second non-lane section in accordance with a second lane link (Hoshina: Par. 33; i.e., the control unit 2 sets a target path for vehicle 10 to pass through the toll gate based on the relative position between the toll gate and vehicle 10; Par. 55; i.e., the planned route 23 is set along the left branch path 20L).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the path generation device of Nanbada and Tojo to have further incorporated wherein the section determination unit determines a first lane section, a first non-lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the first lane section, a second lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the first non-lane section, a second non-lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the second lane section, and a third lane section located ahead in the traveling direction with respect to the second non-lane section, and determines the plurality of gates as the second lane section, and the path generation unit generates the travel path in the first non-lane section in accordance with a first lane link and generates the travel path in the second non-lane section in accordance with a second lane link, as taught by Hoshina. Doing so would allow the vehicle to limit the change of steering angle along the planned route (Hoshina: Par. 74; i.e., allows the vehicle 10 to change its steering angle less when driving the vehicle 10 along the planned route farther from the toll gate).
Nanbada further teaches the path generation unit generates the travel path in the first non-lane section in accordance with a first lane link in which the number of intersections is the smallest among a plurality of first lane links and generates the travel path in the second non-lane section in accordance with a second lane link in which the number of intersections is the smallest among a plurality of second lane links (Nanbada: Par. 44; i.e., The second setting criterion is based on the number of intersections between the target intersection links and other intersection links; Par. 58; i.e., prioritize passing through links with fewer intersections at Intersection I; Par. 83; i.e., selects the intersection link as the driving route among the intersection link information based on … information indicating priority; the travel path is selected based on the intersection link with the least intersections with other links).
Nanbada in view of Tojo and Hoshina does not teach calculates, as a first intersection point, an intersection point between the travel path of the first non-lane section generated in accordance with the first lane link in which the number of intersections is the smallest and a line segment passing through the automated gate closest to the first lane link, calculates, as a second intersection point, an intersection point between the line segment and the travel path of the second non-lane section generated in accordance with the second lane link in which the number of intersections is the smallest, and corrects the travel path in the first non-lane section and the travel path in the second non-lane section to pass through the automated gate closest to the first lane link, the first intersection point, and the second intersection point.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kume teaches calculates, as a first intersection point, an intersection point between the travel path of the first non-lane section generated in accordance with the first lane link in which the number of intersections is the smallest and a line segment passing through the automated gate closest to the first lane link, calculates, as a second intersection point, an intersection point between the line segment and the travel path of the second non-lane section generated in accordance with the second lane link in which the number of intersections is the smallest, and corrects the travel path in the first non-lane section and the travel path in the second non-lane section to pass through the automated gate closest to the first lane link, the first intersection point, and the second intersection point (Kume: Par. 111; i.e., once the target gate is set, the processor 31 creates a pre-gate trajectory and a post-gate trajectory based on the position of the target gate, the current position of the subject vehicle, and the position of a planned driving lane on the post-gate road. The pre-gate trajectory is a trajectory leading up to the entry of the target gate. The post-gate trajectory is a trajectory from the exit of the target gate to the entry onto the post-gate road… In FIG. 3, the broken line indicated by “Tr1” conceptually represents the pre-gate trajectory, while the broken line indicated by “Tr2” conceptually represents the post-gate trajectory; Par. 167; i.e., nodes are set at locations where roads intersect, merge, or diverge, at points where the number of lanes increases or decreases, and at gate points. The link data refers to data regarding road segments (links) that connect the nodes; the pre-gate and post-gate trajectories are connected through the target gate to form the corrected travel path).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the path generation device of Nanbada, Tojo, and Hoshina to have further incorporated calculates, as a first intersection point, an intersection point between the travel path of the first non-lane section generated in accordance with the first lane link in which the number of intersections is the smallest and a line segment passing through the automated gate closest to the first lane link, calculates, as a second intersection point, an intersection point between the line segment and the travel path of the second non-lane section generated in accordance with the second lane link in which the number of intersections is the smallest, and corrects the travel path in the first non-lane section and the travel path in the second non-lane section to pass through the automated gate closest to the first lane link, the first intersection point, and the second intersection point, as taught by Kume. Doing so would reduce the likelihood of a collision with another vehicle before or after passing through the gate (Kume: Par. 27; i.e., reducing a possibility of contact with another vehicle when traveling near a gate during automated driving).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art deemed pertinent in the art of path generation across road sections without lane lines includes Liebner et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2026/0251475), Mizutani et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0389463), and Ishigami et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0248588).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
