The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending and examined.
Drawing
The drawings Fig. 16 is objected to because “another moving body” as claimed in claim 9 is not shown. Applicant is requested to show “another moving body” to facilitate understanding of the invention (MPEP 608.02). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1, 10, and 11
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes). Independent claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a computer readable recording medium having stored program which is considered broadly as transitory signal which does not belong to any one of statutory categories of invention (Step 1: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims and the other claims recite a method and system for setting a first reference route, acquiring a detection result, setting a subgoal, setting a second reference route, and setting an avoidance route as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 11. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the control unit”. That is, other than reciting “by the control unit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the control unit” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a control unit does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements of setting a first reference route, acquiring a detection result, setting a subgoal, setting a second reference route, and setting an avoidance route. The acquiring a detection result is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle route data for use in the setting steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The setting steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the acquiring step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The route setting steps merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose traffic control environment.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating and outputting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that related patent literature “Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2014-164424” is well known [0003]. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-9, and 12
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2-9, and 12 are directed to “a method’. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2-9, and 12 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-9, and 12 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-9, and 12 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-9, and 12 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 2-9, and 12 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis) of claim 1 applies. Claims 2-9, and 12 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2-9, and 12 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2-9, and 12 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
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:
“detection control unit” and “movement control unit” as recited in claim 11 to perform respective function to “detect” and “causes”.
All the above units invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, all the above units are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. “[0029] The control unit 74 is a computation device, and includes, for example, a computation circuit such as a CPU. The control unit 74 includes a reference route acquisition unit 80, a movement control unit 82, a detection control unit 84, a sub-goal setting unit 86, a reference route setting unit 88, and an avoidance route setting unit 90.“. Thus, “detection control unit” and “movement control unit” correspond to the control unit 74 which comprises a a computation circuit such as a CPU.
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.
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.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Naka etal., US 2017/0236422 (A1) in view of Di Cairano etal., US 2016/0375901 (A1).
As to claim 1, Naka teaches a route-setting method (Fig. 8A and related text) comprising:
a step of setting a first reference route to a movement destination (Fig. 8A and related text);
a step of acquiring a detection result of an obstacle detected by a sensor provided in a moving body, while the moving body is moving along the first reference route (Fig. 8A and related text);
a step of setting a sub-goal, which is a position assumed not to interfere with the obstacle, based on the detection result of the obstacle (Fig. 8A and related text);
Santucci does not specifically teach:
a step of setting a second reference route passing through a position within a prescribed distance range with respect to the sub-goal; and
a step of setting an avoidance route for the moving body that does not interfere with the obstacle, based on the second reference route and on the detection result of the obstacle.
However, Di Cairano, in the same field endeavor, teaches control of a vehicle to avoid an obstacle in the reference path 253 with a preset distance from road edge and the vehicle is controlled to travel to a modified path 256-257 to avoid the obstacle (Di Cairano: Fig. 2 and related text). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the obstacle avoidance system as taught by Naka to include setting a second reference route passing through a position within a prescribed distance range with respect to the sub-goal; and setting an avoidance route for the moving body that does not interfere with the obstacle, based on the second reference route and on the detection result of the obstacle as taught by Di Cairano to improve safety and efficiency for obstacle avoidance on the road (Naka: ¶6).
As to claim 2, Naka modified by Di Cairano teaches the route-setting method,
wherein in the step of setting the avoidance route, the avoidance route is set by performing optimization calculation with the second reference route as an initial solution and a constraint condition of no interference with the obstacle (Di Cairano: “each path avoid the obstacle while satisfying driving constraints; and selecting the modified path from the set of paths based on a difference between the current path and the modified path and a metric of performance”, claim 3).
As to claim 3, Naka modified by Di Cairano teaches the route-setting method, wherein in the step of setting the second reference route, the second reference route is set based on a motion characteristic of the moving body (Di Cairano: “override actions of the driver making the vehicle to maneuver to avoid such obstacles without excessive deviation from the reference path to limit disturbance to the driver. So the path generated by some embodiments starts from the reference path, performs the needed maneuvers and comes back to the reference path”, ¶45).
As to claim 4, Naka modified by Di Cairano teaches the route-setting method, wherein in the step of acquiring the detection result of the obstacle, a detection result of the sensor is acquired as point groups, a line connecting the point groups in an order of a magnitude of an azimuth angle between a position of the sensor and the point groups is calculated from the position of the sensor, and an inside of a region surrounded by the line is set as a non-interference region that does not interfere with the obstacle, and at least one of the sub-goal and the avoidance route is set based on the non-interference region (Di Cairano: Figs. 4A and B and related text; angle between reference path and vector, ¶58-60).
As to claim 5, Naka modified by Di Cairano teaches the route-setting method, wherein the region is set each time the sensor is caused to perform detection, and the non-interference region is set based on the region for each detection of the sensor (Di Cairano: “sensor for detecting an obstacle on the current path of the vehicle; a path planning system for modifying the current path for the vehicle, in response to detecting an obstacle on the current path of the vehicle, to produce a modified path avoiding the obstacle”, claim 15).
As to claim 6, Naka modified by Di Cairano teaches the route-setting method, wherein in the step of acquiring the detection result of the obstacle, a detection result of the sensor is acquired as point groups, and analysis point groups are extracted from the acquired point groups based on a distance from the moving body to the point groups, and at least one of the sub-goal and the avoidance route is set based on the analysis point groups (Di Cairano: “new point 422 in the drivable space is randomly selected, and the closest node 426 in the tree according to a distance measure is selected. The new node 423 of the tree is obtained from point 422 and node 426 for instance as the point in the line between 426 and 422 within a given distance from 426. Such distance is large for coarse paths and small for fine paths. The new node 423 is connected to the tree by adding the link 429 from new node 423 to a node 425 on the tree in the neighborhood of new node 422 such that the path connecting the nodes 420 and 423 is more optimal”, ¶43).
As to claim 7, Naka modified by Di Cairano teaches the route-setting method, wherein a region in which the moving body is assumed to move is divided into a plurality of regions along a traveling direction of the moving body to set division regions, and nearby point groups, which are point groups closest to the moving body among the point groups in the division regions, are extracted as the analysis point groups for each of the division regions (Di Cairano: Fig. 4B and related text shows three regions along travelling regions with point groups closest to the moving body in the division).
As to claim 8, Naka modified by Di Cairano teaches the route-setting method, wherein positions between the nearby point groups are also extracted as the analysis point groups (Di Cairano: Fig. 4B and related text shows three regions along travelling regions with point groups closest to the moving body in the division).
As to claim 9, Naka modified by Di Cairano teaches the route-setting method, further comprising:
a step of setting an occupied region in which a movement of another moving body is not permitted while a movement of the moving body is permitted in a case where the obstacle is detected by the sensor (Naka: Fig. 6 and related text, reject departure S606),
wherein in the step of setting the avoidance route, the avoidance route is set to pass through the occupied region (Naka: Fig. 6 and related text, accept departure S605).
As to claim 12 Naka modified by Di Cairano teaches the route-setting method, further comprising:
a step of determining whether the obstacle moves or not (Di Cairano: “the force vectors represent the constraints presented by stationary and movable obstacles, bending the path based on these vectors can avoid these obstacles. The system can modify the planned path based on the various magnitudes and dispersion of the force vectors applied by the obstacles.”, ¶4); and
a step of setting an obstacle region that may exist as the obstacle moves, in a case where it is determined that the obstacle moves (Di Cairano: Fig. 8B and related text),
wherein in the step of setting the sub-goal, each position that is a position on an outer side of the obstacle region and that is arranged in a traveling direction of the first reference route is set as the sub-goal (Di Cairano: Fig. 8B and related text).
As to claims10 and 11, they are apparatus claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the method claim 1. As such, claims 10 and 11 are rejected substantially the same reasons for claim 1 (Naka: “vehicle ECU 30 is an electronic control unit (ECU) having various function means to be realized through execution of programs stored in a memory by CPU”, 55; see claim 1 for rationale, motivation, and reasons to combine).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Examiner’s Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, the applicant is requested to indicate support for amended claim language and newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). (MPEP 2163 I. B. New or Amended Claims). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
