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 05/08/2025 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a road surface environment information generation unit in claims 1 and 5
a control information generation unit in claims 1 and 6-7
a road surface environment information update unit in claims 8-12
a road surface environment information update notification unit in claim 12
A reception unit in claim 19
A generation unit in claims 19 and 20
A transmission unit in claim 19
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. After further review of the specifications, it appears that the road surface environment information generation unit, the control information generation unit, the road surface environment information update unit, the road surface environment information update notification unit, the reception unit, the generation unit and transmission unit do not recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Figures 5 and 7 show these units, and they are mentioned in Para. 0040 and Para. 0052 of the specifications (filed. 05/08/2025), but they do not recite the specific structure required to perform the claimed function. Therefore, these terms are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitation such as “the road surface environment information generation unit, the control information generation unit, the road surface environment information update unit, the road surface environment information update notification unit, the reception unit, the generation unit and the transmission unit” which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), was not described in the specifications in such a way as to reasonable convey to one skilled in the art that one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. For example, Figs. 5 and 7 illustrate those units, and Para. 0040 and Para. 0052 of the specifications (filed. 05/08/2025) mention these units, but the specifications/drawings appear to be silent with regards to what the structure of these units contain and it is unclear to the examiner these limitations are performed since they do not recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, these claim limitations are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies as recited above.
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 1-12 and 18-20 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 2 recites “wherein the predetermined route is a route on which the first vehicle travels when the first vehicle avoids a predetermined obstacle” while claim 4 recites “wherein the predetermined obstacle exists on a route different from the predetermined route, and the predetermined route is a route for bypassing the route different from the predetermined route.” Claim 4 depends on claim 2, and it is unclear to the examiner how the predetermined route is both a route wherein the first vehicle travels to avoid a predetermined obstacle on the route, and a route for bypassing the route different from the predetermined route. It is unclear which route is the predetermined route and if they are the same route or different routes, since the applicant is claiming two different predetermined routes (one wherein an obstacle is present and avoided by the first vehicle [claim 2], and one wherein an obstacle is not present and is used for bypassing the route different from the predetermined route). As currently presented, the claim fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claims, which renders the claim indefinite. The examiner will interpret the predetermined route in claim 4 as a route for bypassing a different route that contains an obstacle. Appropriate correction is required. The same rational applies to claim 18.
With respect to claims 1-12 and 19-20, the claim limitations “the road surface environment information generation unit, the control information generation unit, the road surface environment information update unit, the road surface environment information update notification unit, the reception unit, the generation unit and the transmission unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It is not clear to the examiner if said claim limitations are geared towards hardware structures of the system/apparatus/server or if they are geared towards software codes or blocks. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitations are vague and ill-defined which renders the claims indefinite. Furthermore, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies as recited above.
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 1-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-13 and 19-20 are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Claims 1-13 and 19-20 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1:
An information processing apparatus comprising: a road surface environment information generation unit that generates road surface environment information on a road surface of a predetermined route on a basis of a vehicle operation state when a first vehicle travels on the predetermined route;
and a control information generation unit that generates control information when a second vehicle travels on the predetermined route on a basis of the road surface environment information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because user its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generate road surface environment information on a road surface of a predetermined route on a basis of a vehicle operation state when a first vehicle travels on the predetermined route” and “generates control information when a second vehicle travels on the predetermined route on a basis of the road surface environment information” in the context of the claim encompasses the user generating data, which is data that can be drawn on a map (i.e. generate road surface environment information on a road surface), and generating control information which can be created by a user based on the second vehicle traveling on a predetermined route. Since generating information can be done by a user with pen/paper, then these limitations recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The same rational applies to independent claim 13.
Claim 2,
wherein the predetermined route is a route on which the first vehicle travels when the first vehicle avoids a predetermined obstacle.
Claim 3:
wherein the predetermined obstacle exists on the predetermined route.
Claim 4:
wherein the predetermined obstacle exists on a route different from the predetermined route, and the predetermined route is a route for bypassing the route different from the predetermined route.
Regarding claims 2-4, these limitations discloses what the predetermined route and where the predetermined obstacle exists. Since this predetermined route and obstacle can be drawn on a map, then these limitations recite a mental process i.e. an abstract idea.
Claim 5:
a storage unit that records the road surface environment information generated by the road surface environment information generation unit in association with position information and expiration period information
Regarding claim 5, this limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user recording the generated road surface environment information based on position info and expiration period info. Since this limitation can be drawn and saved (i.e. recorded) by a user, then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea.
Claim 6:
wherein the control information generation unit selectively uses the road surface environment information corresponding to the predetermined route on a basis of the position information.
Claim 7:
wherein the control information generation unit selectively uses the road surface environment information within an expiration period on a basis of the expiration period information.
Regarding claims 6-7, these limitations discloses selectively using information on a basis of the position information or within an expiration period, which are steps that can be done mentally, since a user can select information to be used based on other information presented to the user. Therefore, these limitations recite a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 20.
Claim 8:
a road surface environment information update unit that generates road surface environment information on a basis of vehicle operation information when the second vehicle travels on the predetermined route and updates the road surface environment information recorded in the storage unit.
Regarding claim 8, this limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user using vehicle operation information to generate road surface environment information and updating the road surface information that is already recorded, which can be done by a user redrawing the road surface environment information on a map. Therefore, these limitations recite a mental process i.e. an abstract idea.
Claim 9:
wherein the road surface environment information update unit records the generated road surface environment information in the storage unit when the road surface environment information for the same position as the generated road surface environment information is not recorded in the storage unit.
Regarding claim 9, this limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user saving the generated road surface information when the info at the same position is not recorded in the storage unit. This can be done by a user determining that the info is not already recorded in that position, and then drawing and saving the road surface information at that position. Therefore, these limitations recite a mental process i.e. an abstract idea.
Claim 10:
wherein the road surface environment information update unit extends an expiration period of the recorded road surface environment information when the road surface environment information having the same content for the same position as the generated road surface environment information is recorded in the storage unit.
Regarding claim 10, this limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user extending an expiration period, which is a step that can be done mentally (i.e. switching a number). Therefore this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea.
Claim 11:
wherein the road surface environment information update unit deletes the recorded road surface environment information from the storage unit and records the generated road surface environment information in the storage unit when road surface environment information having different content for the same position as the generated road surface environment information is recorded in the storage unit.
Regarding claim 11, this limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user deleting and adding/saving data, which is a process that can be done mentally (i.e. by removing data and adding data via pen/paper). Therefore this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea.
Claim 19:
A driving assistance server comprising:
a reception unit that receives a vehicle operation state when a first vehicle travels on a predetermined route from the first vehicle;
a generation unit that generates road surface environment information on a road surface of the predetermined route on a basis of the vehicle operation state;
and a transmission unit that transmits the road surface environment information or control information generated on a basis of the road surface environment information to a second vehicle traveling on the predetermined route.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation of “generates road surface environment information on a road surface of the predetermined route on a basis of the vehicle operation state” in the context of the claim encompasses the user drawing road surface information on a road surface of a predetermined route based on a received vehicle operation state. Since this limitation can be drawn by a user, then this limitation recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 12:
a road surface environment information update notification unit that, when the road surface environment information recorded in the storage unit is updated by the road surface environment information update unit, notifies a remote driving operator of the update.
Claim 19:
A driving assistance server comprising:
a reception unit that receives a vehicle operation state when a first vehicle travels on a predetermined route from the first vehicle;
a generation unit that generates road surface environment information on a road surface of the predetermined route on a basis of the vehicle operation state;
and a transmission unit that transmits the road surface environment information or control information generated on a basis of the road surface environment information to a second vehicle traveling on the predetermined route.
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 limitations of “notifying”, “receiving data”, and “transmitting data” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. processors) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and transmitting step by the processors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering and sending data), and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the step of notifying an operator based on determined data is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses a computer to perform the process of notifying a user, wherein the process of notifying a user is common in the field.
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 (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 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1,8, and 15 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 processor to perform the determining and comparing amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, with regards to the additional limitations of “notifying”, “receiving data”, and “transmitting data”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “notifying”, “receiving data”, and “transmitting data” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional processor. The step of receiving and transmitting data is taught in the primary reference Ma et al. US20210383138A1, see Para. 0053 and 0061. Additionally, the step of notifying an operator is taught in the secondary reference Fasola et al. US20210404813A1, see Para. 0059-0060. Accordingly, the steps of notifying a user, receiving data, and transmitting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
Examiner Note: Independent claim 14 and its dependent claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim recites “the second vehicle performs automated driving control on a basis of control information generated on a basis of the road surface environment information transmitted from the remote assistance server or the control information transmitted from the remote assistance server” and the specifications (filed 05/08/2025) in Para. 0071 discloses a positive recitation of controlling the vehicle to travel on the route via generated control information (i.e. acceleration/deceleration amount and a steering amount). Therefore, claims 14-18 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-3, 5-8, 10, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. US20210383138A1 (henceforth Ma)
Regarding claim 1,
Ma discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising: a road surface environment information generation unit that generates road surface environment information on a road surface of a predetermined route on a basis of a vehicle operation state when a first vehicle travels on the predetermined route; (See at least Fig. 1 and Para. 0025-0029, wherein an autonomous vehicle generates road surface environment information on a road surface of a predetermined route (i.e. see Fig. 1 and Para. 0029, wherein the perception engine generates the lane states 130) on the basis of a vehicle operation state (See at least Para. 0022, “location of the autonomous vehicle” and Para. 0024-0025, “sensor data”) when a first vehicle travels on the predetermined route.)
and a control information generation unit that generates control information when a second vehicle travels on the predetermined route on a basis of the road surface environment information. (See at least Para. 0061, “In some examples, the autonomous vehicle 102 may transmit one or more of the alternative lane shapes to a teleoperations system to receive confirmation of the alternative lane shape, a confirmation to cross double line 316, and/or for a teleoperator to provide a modification to the alternative lane shape. In some examples, the alternative lane shape may be stored in a global map database, which may be retrieved by or pushed to (e.g., based on a vehicle that generates a route proximate to a roadway associated with the alternative lane shape) one or more vehicles of a fleet.” Additionally, see Para. 0078, “generate a presentation of data received from one or more vehicles of a fleet and/or input options to present to a teleoperator to provide guidance to one or more vehicles (e.g., an option to select a displayed button that confirms a trajectory determined by a vehicle, an option for modifying and/or confirming an alternative lane shape determined by a vehicle, an option to confirm crossing a double line”. Control information is generated when a second vehicle travels on the predetermined route on a basis of the road surface environment information. Further see Para. 0093, which further discloses “controlling an autonomous vehicle” based on receiving (from a remote computing system) the drivable surface.)
Regarding claim 2,
Ma discloses:
wherein the predetermined route is a route on which the first vehicle travels when the first vehicle avoids a predetermined obstacle. (See at least Fig. 1 (traffic cones 120) and Para. 0031, “planner may generate and/or select trajectory 136 based at least in part on a closed lane status 134 associated with the current lane 122.” The predetermined route is a route on which the first vehicle travels when the first vehicle avoids a predetermined obstacle.)
Regarding claim 3,
Ma discloses:
wherein the predetermined obstacle exists on the predetermined route. (See at least Fig. 1 and Para. 0025, wherein the traffic cones exists on the predetermined route.)
Regarding claim 5,
Ma discloses:
further comprising: a storage unit that records the road surface environment information generated by the road surface environment information generation unit in association with position information and expiration period information.
(See at least Para. 0053, “an autonomous vehicle may store a lane open/closed state in association with a map so that the state may persist. In some examples, such a persistent state may be associated with an expiration time (e.g., a time from determining the state or receiving the state at which the state will be cleared)“ and “the autonomous vehicle may transmit such information regarding partial or full lane closures to a global map database such that other autonomous vehicles may retrieve data about lane closures. In any such examples, similar steps of expiration time may be implemented and/or be validated/updated based on newly acquired sensor data from the additional vehicles.” A storage unit records road surface info that is associated with position information and expiration period information.)
Additionally, Para. 0075, “the computing device(s) 514 may generate and/or store state tracker 530 and/or map(s) 532. State tracker 530 may comprise a register, state machine, and/or any other method of persistently and/or temporarily (e.g., for at least a defined (expiration) time) identifying a closed or open state of a lane“.)
Regarding claim 6,
Ma discloses:
wherein the control information generation unit selectively uses the road surface environment information corresponding to the predetermined route on a basis of the position information. (See at least Para. 0061, “the alternative lane shape may be stored in a global map database, which may be retrieved by or pushed to (e.g., based on a vehicle that generates a route proximate to a roadway associated with the alternative lane shape)”. The position information is used to selectively use the road surface environment information corresponding to the predetermined route. Additionally, see at least Para. 0018 and Para. 0031.)
Regarding claim 7,
Ma discloses:
wherein the control information generation unit selectively uses the road surface environment information within an expiration period on a basis of the expiration period information. (See at least Para. 0031, “planner may generate and/or select trajectory 136 based at least in part on a closed lane status 134 associated with the current lane 122” and Para. 0053, “an autonomous vehicle may store a lane open/closed state in association with a map so that the state may persist. In some examples, such a persistent state may be associated with an expiration time (e.g., a time from determining the state or receiving the state at which the state will be cleared) or may persist until re-determined or updated (e.g., by receiving a state associated with the lane from another vehicle and/or the remote computing device).” The trajectory decisions are based on states that are still within their expiration period. Additionally, see Para. 0075.)
Regarding claim 8,
Ma discloses:
a road surface environment information update unit that generates road surface environment information on a basis of vehicle operation information when the second vehicle travels on the predetermined route and updates the road surface environment information recorded in the storage unit.
(See at least Para. 0053, “an autonomous vehicle may store a lane open/closed state in association with a map so that the state may persist. In some examples, such a persistent state may be associated with an expiration time (e.g., a time from determining the state or receiving the state at which the state will be cleared) or may persist until re-determined or updated (e.g., by receiving a state associated with the lane from another vehicle and/or the remote computing device).” The stored map is updated by receiving a state associated with the lane from a second vehicle.)
Regarding claim 10,
Ma discloses:
wherein the road surface environment information update unit extends an expiration period of the recorded road surface environment information when the road surface environment information having the same content for the same position as the generated road surface environment information is recorded in the storage unit. (See at least Para. 0053, “such a persistent state may be associated with an expiration time (e.g., a time from determining the state or receiving the state at which the state will be cleared) or may persist until re-determined or updated (e.g., by receiving a state associated with the lane from another vehicle and/or the remote computing device). In at least some examples, the autonomous vehicle may transmit such information regarding partial or full lane closures to a global map database such that other autonomous vehicles may retrieve data about lane closures. In any such examples, similar steps of expiration time may be implemented and/or be validated/updated based on newly acquired sensor data from the additional vehicles.” An expiration time is extended when additional vehicles validate the data (i.e. same location and same road surface environment information.)
Regarding claim 13,
Ma discloses:
An information processing method comprising: a procedure of generating road surface environment information on a road surface of a predetermined route on a basis of a vehicle operation state when a first vehicle travels on the predetermined route; (See at least Fig. 1 and Para. 0025-0029, wherein an autonomous vehicle generates road surface environment information on a road surface of a predetermined route (i.e. see Fig. 1 and Para. 0029, wherein the perception engine generates the lane states 130) on the basis of a vehicle operation state (See at least Para. 0022, “location of the autonomous vehicle” and Para. 0024-0025, “sensor data”) when a first vehicle travels on the predetermined route.)
and a procedure of generating control information when a second vehicle travels on the predetermined route on a basis of the road surface environment information. (See at least Para. 0061, “In some examples, the autonomous vehicle 102 may transmit one or more of the alternative lane shapes to a teleoperations system to receive confirmation of the alternative lane shape, a confirmation to cross double line 316, and/or for a teleoperator to provide a modification to the alternative lane shape. In some examples, the alternative lane shape may be stored in a global map database, which may be retrieved by or pushed to (e.g., based on a vehicle that generates a route proximate to a roadway associated with the alternative lane shape) one or more vehicles of a fleet.” Additionally, see Para. 0078, “generate a presentation of data received from one or more vehicles of a fleet and/or input options to present to a teleoperator to provide guidance to one or more vehicles (e.g., an option to select a displayed button that confirms a trajectory determined by a vehicle, an option for modifying and/or confirming an alternative lane shape determined by a vehicle, an option to confirm crossing a double line”. Control information is generated when a second vehicle travels on the predetermined route on a basis of the road surface environment information. Further see Para. 0093, which further discloses “controlling an autonomous vehicle” based on receiving (from a remote computing system) the drivable surface.)
Regarding claim 14,
Ma discloses:
An information processing system comprising: a first vehicle; (Para. 0019, “autonomous vehicle 102”.)
a remote assistance server; (See at least Fig. 5, “Networks 516” and “Remote computing device 514”. Additionally, see Para. 0066-0067, “cloud computing architecture” and “teleoperations system”.)
and a second vehicle, (Para. 0053, “additional vehicles”, which includes a second vehicle.)
wherein the first vehicle transmits vehicle operation information when the first vehicle travels on a predetermined route to the remote assistance server, (See at least Para. 0053 “example process 200 may additionally or alternatively comprise transmitting a set of states associated with portions of lane(s) and/or roadway(s) to a remote computing device. For example, an autonomous vehicle may transmit a notification that the autonomous vehicle has identified a portion of a lane as being closed upon such a determination and/or the autonomous vehicle may periodically transmit a “heartbeat” signal that includes a current state of the state machine and/or a location of the autonomous vehicle, thereby identifying state(s) of the lane(s) at which the autonomous vehicle is located.“ The first vehicle transmits vehicle operation information (i.e. location info and current state of the state machine) when the first vehicle travels on a predetermined route to the remote assistant server. Furthermore, the “vehicle operation information” encompasses any information that the vehicle generates and transmits as part of its operation on the road, which includes what the vehicle perceives.)
the remote assistance server generates road surface environment information on a road surface of the predetermined route on a basis of the vehicle operation information transmitted from the first vehicle, and transmits the generated road surface environment information or control information generated on a basis of the road surface environment information to the second vehicle traveling on the predetermined route, (See at least Para. 0061, “the autonomous vehicle 102 may transmit one or more of the alternative lane shapes to a teleoperations system to receive confirmation of the alternative lane shape, a confirmation to cross double line 316, and/or for a teleoperator to provide a modification to the alternative lane shape. In some examples, the alternative lane shape may be stored in a global map database, which may be retrieved by or pushed to (e.g., based on a vehicle that generates a route proximate to a roadway associated with the alternative lane shape) one or more vehicles of a fleet.” The remote assistant server generates road surface environment information on a road surface of the predetermined route on a basis of the vehicle information (i.e. vehicle location and the received lane shape) and transmits it to a second vehicle travel traveling on the predetermined route.)
and the second vehicle performs automated driving control on a basis of control information generated on a basis of the road surface environment information transmitted from the remote assistance server or the control information transmitted from the remote assistance server. (See at least Para. 0093, “receiving, from a remote computing system and based at least in part on the drivable surface, a second status indicating the lane as being closed; and determining a route for controlling an autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the second status and the drivable surface”. A second vehicle performs automated driving (i.e. an autonomous vehicle) based on the road surface environment information transmitted from the remote assistance server.)
Regarding claim 15,
Ma discloses:
wherein the first vehicle travels on the predetermined route on a basis of operation by a remote driving operator. (See at least Para. 0061 and 0078.)
Regarding claim 16,
Ma discloses:
wherein the predetermined route is a route on which the first vehicle travels when the first vehicle avoids a predetermined obstacle. (See at least Fig. 1 (traffic cones 120) and Para. 0031, “planner may generate and/or select trajectory 136 based at least in part on a closed lane status 134 associated with the current lane 122.” The predetermined route is a route on which the first vehicle travels when the first vehicle avoids a predetermined obstacle.)
Regarding claim 17,
Ma discloses:
wherein the predetermined obstacle exists on the predetermined route.
(See at least Fig. 1 and Para. 0025, wherein the traffic cones exists on the predetermined route.)
Regarding claim 19,
Ma discloses:
A driving assistance server comprising: a reception unit that receives a vehicle operation state when a first vehicle travels on a predetermined route from the first vehicle; (See at least Para. 0053, wherein the server receives (from the first vehicle) a vehicle operation state information when a vehicle travels on a predetermined route.)
a generation unit that generates road surface environment information on a road surface of the predetermined route on a basis of the vehicle operation state; and a transmission unit that transmits the road surface environment information or control information generated on a basis of the road surface environment information to a second vehicle traveling on the predetermined route.
(See at least Para. 0061, “the autonomous vehicle 102 may transmit one or more of the alternative lane shapes to a teleoperations system to receive confirmation of the alternative lane shape, a confirmation to cross double line 316, and/or for a teleoperator to provide a modification to the alternative lane shape. In some examples, the alternative lane shape may be stored in a global map database, which may be retrieved by or pushed to (e.g., based on a vehicle that generates a route proximate to a roadway associated with the alternative lane shape) one or more vehicles of a fleet.” The remote assistant server generates road surface environment information on a road surface of the predetermined route on a basis of the vehicle information (i.e. vehicle location and the received lane shape) and transmits it to a second vehicle travel traveling on the predetermined route.)
Regarding claim 20,
Ma discloses:
a storage unit that records the road surface environment information generated by the generation unit in association with position information and expiration period information. (See at least Para. 0053 and Para. 0075.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Bonk US20190135283A1.
Regarding claim 4,
Ma discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1-2 above. Ma does not specifically state wherein the predetermined obstacle exists on a route different from the predetermined route, and the predetermined route is a route for bypassing the route different from the predetermined route.
However, Bonk teaches:
wherein the predetermined obstacle exists on a route different from the predetermined route, and the predetermined route is a route for bypassing the route different from the predetermined route. (See at least Para. 0044, “the road anomaly can encompass a certain width of a lane that makes impact avoidance impracticable, such as a rough road in general, or large road cracks, potholes, or combinations of the same. For such major road anomalies, the routing engine 160 can determine one or more detours to enable a converging AV 187 to avoid the road anomaly. In such examples, the routing engine can preemptively cause AVs 187 to avoid the major road anomaly by routing the AVs 187 to avoid the road anomaly despite a longer estimated time of arrival to a current destination. In variations (e.g., for AVs making autonomous routing decisions), the routing engine 160 can dynamically instruct the AVs 187 to take a detour or alternative route to avoid the road anomaly.” The predetermined route is a route for bypassing the route different from the predetermined route.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ma to incorporate the teachings of Bonk to include wherein the predetermined obstacle exists on a route different from the predetermined route, and the predetermined route is a route for bypassing the route different from the predetermined route in order to bypass a route that contains major road anomalies (Para. 0044, Bonk) which would “ achieve a technical effect of preventing or preempting unnecessary autonomy shutdown due to road anomalies” (Para. 0012, Bonk). This would create a more robust system for an autonomous vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ma and Bonk. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 18,
Ma and Bonk discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rationale.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Ito 6,154,152A.
Regarding claim 9,
Ma discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1, 5, and 8 above.
Ma does not specifically state wherein the road surface environment information update unit records the generated road surface environment information in the storage unit when the road surface environment information for the same position as the generated road surface environment information is not recorded in the storage unit.
However, Ito teaches:
wherein the road surface environment information update unit records the generated road surface environment information in the storage unit when the road surface environment information for the same position as the generated road surface environment information is not recorded in the storage unit.
(See at least Column 2, lines 43-54, “means for detecting a current position of a vehicle; means for determining a candidate unpossessed road by judging whether the vehicle travels on the candidate unpossessed road based on the current position of the vehicle; and means for notifying the information center of road data of the candidate unpossessed road determined based on a locus of the current position of the vehicle. The information center includes maintenance means for evaluating the reliability of the road data of the candidate unpossessed road collected from a plurality of vehicles and adding the road data having a high reliability to the possessed road data.” The update unit records the generated road information when the road information for the same position is not recorded in the storage unit.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ma to incorporate the teachings of Ito to include the limitations as recited above since “it is desired for the information center to always store the latest road data” (Column 1, lines 45-47, Ito), which would create a more robust system for updating road information in a storage unit. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ma and Ito. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Ewert US20190219405A1.
Regarding claim 11,
Ma discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1, 5, and 8 above.
Ma further discloses:
records the generated road surface environment information in the storage unit when road surface environment information having different content for the same position as the generated road surface environment information is recorded in the storage unit. (See at least Para. 0053, “such a persistent state may be associated with an expiration time (e.g., a time from determining the state or receiving the state at which the state will be cleared) or may persist until re-determined or updated (e.g., by receiving a state associated with the lane from another vehicle and/or the remote computing device). In at least some examples, the autonomous vehicle may transmit such information regarding partial or full lane closures to a global map database such that other autonomous vehicles may retrieve data about lane closures. In any such examples, similar steps of expiration time may be implemented and/or be validated/updated based on newly acquired sensor data from the additional vehicles.” The stored state persists until it is re-determined or updated, which describes a scenario where new information comes in for the same lane (i.e. same position, different content) that changes the stored state.)
Ma does not specifically state wherein the road information update unit deletes the recorded road information from the storage unit.
However, Ewert teaches:
wherein the road information update unit deletes the recorded road information from the storage unit
(See at least Para. 0031, “In a step 250, the deviation from step 240 is received. Still other deviations may also be received, which have been determined by other motor vehicles 105. In a step 255, the received deviations are evaluated. In the process, it may be considered, in particular, that a change of a potential traffic routing is likely, in particular, if it has been determined at the same location by multiple vehicles... In another preferred specific embodiment, an update is transmitted to motor vehicle 105 in a step 265 and added to local data memory 118. In this case, the update may include an addition or a deletion of a road or of a traffic junction. In the event a road is relocated, for example, due to a construction site, an old road may be deleted and a new road may be added. The recorded road information from the storage unit is deleted in order to update it.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ma to incorporate the teachings of Ewert to include the limitations as recited above since “The autonomous or semi-autonomous control of the motor vehicle may be difficult if map data of the navigation system do not coincide with a scan of the surroundings of the motor vehicle. If, for example, the traffic routing is temporarily altered, for example, in the area of a construction site, new roadway construction or if there is a change of traffic regulations in the area of the motor vehicle, a planning of the route on which the motor vehicle is to be guided, and the guidance of the motor vehicle are difficult and errors or unsolvable situations may result.” (Para. 0003, Ewert). Therefore, it would create an improved technology for updating navigating/map data. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ma and Ewert. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Fasola et al. US20210404813A1 (henceforth Fasola).
Regarding claim 12,
Ma discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1, 5, and 8 above.
Ma does not specifically state a road surface environment information update notification unit that, when the road surface environment information recorded in the storage unit is updated by the road surface environment information update unit, notifies a remote driving operator of the update.
However, Fasola teaches:
a road surface environment information update notification unit that, when the road surface environment information recorded in the storage unit is updated by the road surface environment information update unit, notifies a remote driving operator of the update. (See at least Para. 0059, “the method 400 can include placing a temporary blacklist around the area having a detected pavement marking change; updating the semantic information of the current semantic map with corrected map information” an Para. 0060, “ if the pavement marking change can affect the autonomous vehicle's traveling path, then the method 400 can include initiating a request for remote assistance (e.g., an operator) to manually navigate the autonomous vehicle through the map changed area” The remote driving operator is notified when the road surface environment information is updated.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ma to incorporate the teachings of Fasola to include the limitations as recited above since “when the autonomous vehicle travels into an area where the surroundings (e.g., pavement markings) do not match the prior semantic map, the autonomous vehicle may be unable to function properly and select an unsafe route to proceed” (Para. 0003, Fasola) and “to manually navigate the autonomous vehicle 102 through the map changed area” (Para. 0044, Fasola), which would increase safety and create a more robust autonomous vehicle that can be controlled by a remote operator. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ma and Fasola. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown et al. US20220081005A1 discloses a lead autonomous vehicle (AV) that includes a sensor configured to observe a field of view in front of the lead AV. Following AVs are on the same road behind the lead AV. A processor of the lead AV is configured to detect a road closure. The processor overrides driving instructions of the lead AV, such that the lead AV is stopped at first location coordinates. The processor sends a first message to an operation server, indicating that the road closure is detected. The operation server update the first portion of the map data, reflecting the road closure. The operation server determines whether re-routing is possible for each AV. If re-routing is possible is possible for that AV, the operation server sends re-routing instructions to the AV. If re-routing is not possible is possible for that AV, the operation server sends pulling over instructions to the AV. (See abstract)
Sekine et al. US20070156759A1 discloses a navigation apparatus is disclosed comprising update functions to update nationwide updated version map data using route-specific update data, and to update the nationwide updated version map data to the next nationwide updated version map data using nationwide update data. A map update processing portion of this navigation apparatus performs updates of map data in the background of navigation control, gives priority to update processing using the route-specific update data over update processing using the nationwide update data, and, if map files to be updated using route-specific update files included in the route-specific update data have not been updated using the nationwide update data, performs updates using the nationwide update data, and then performs updates using route-specific update files. (See abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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 Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights