DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits.
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 07/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the typographical error “caluculating”.
Claim 7 recites a “second threshold” without reciting a first threshold.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation “the calculating converts a frequency at which the obstacle appears in the region into a frequency,”. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the frequency can be converted into frequency if it is already a frequency.
Additionally, the term “larger” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “larger” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-19 and 21 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
Claim 1 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
The examiner has identified system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. claim 1 recites:
A route generation system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
a processor configured to execute instructions to:
calculate, for each region constituting a location where a moving body moves, a point to be added to points relevant to a distance the moving body moves to the region, in accordance with a frequency at which an obstacle appears in the region; and
generate a route on which the moving body moves, in accordance with a point added to the region.
The examiner submits that foregoing the bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process” as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. “calculate, for each region constituting a location where a moving body moves, a point to be added to points relevant to a distance the moving body moves to the region, in accordance with a frequency at which an obstacle appears in the region; and generate a route on which the moving body moves, in accordance with a point added to the region.” is equivalent to a mental process of a person observing how frequently an object moves into a region and determining a trajectory to move around an area where the object moves frequently i.e. a mental process of judgment based on observation.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A route generation system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
a processor configured to execute instructions to:
calculate, for each region constituting a location where a moving body moves, a point to be added to points relevant to a distance the moving body moves to the region, in accordance with a frequency at which an obstacle appears in the region; and
generate a route on which the moving body moves, in accordance with a point added to the region.
Regarding the limitations, “a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute instructions to:” the examiner submits that this is an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technologic environment. The memory and processor are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the calculate and generate steps, therefore acting as generic computer components.
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 limitations do 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 (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitations of claim 1 are examples of a generic computer component.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-19, and 21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, similar to the claims shown above.
Claim 2 recites the additional limitation “wherein the caluculating performs calculation in such a way to increase the point to be added as a number of times whether there is an obstacle in the region is changed is increased.” This is equivalent to a mental process of determining based on observation if the frequency of the object in the region has increased.
Claim 6 recites the additional limitation “wherein the generating adds a point to a region adjacent to the region in response to the point to be added in the region being larger than a first threshold to generate a route on which the moving body moves,” this is equivalent to a mental process of comparing the frequency of an object appearing in one region to a threshold to determine if the frequency is larger than the threshold.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Therefore, claims 1-19 and 21 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gabriel et al. (US 20240300523 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Gabriel teaches:
A route generation system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
a processor configured to execute instructions to:
(Gabriel – [0043] “The on-vehicle storage unit 130 stores a program processed by the on-vehicle processing unit 110, a data group necessary for the processing, and the like. In addition, as a main storage when the on-vehicle processing unit 110 executes the program, the on-vehicle storage unit is also used for temporarily storing data necessary for arithmetic processing of the program.”)
calculate, for each region constituting a location where a moving body moves, a point to be added to points relevant to a distance the moving body moves to the region, in accordance with a frequency at which an obstacle appears in the region; and
(Gabriel – [0055] “The invasion frequent occurrence region calculation unit 13 creates the invasion frequent occurrence region data group 33 using the invasion event accumulation data group 32, and stores the invasion frequent occurrence region data group 33 in the server storage unit 30. A procedure of creating the invasion frequent occurrence region data group 33 is, for example, as follows. The invasion frequent occurrence region calculation unit 13 first reads the invasion event accumulation data group 32 and extracts pieces of event data close to each other in the geographic coordinate system to specify a region where the invasion event frequently occurs. Subsequently, the invasion frequent occurrence region calculation unit 13 calculates the shape, the origin coordinates, a moving object invasion frequency, and the like of the region. In addition, the invasion frequent occurrence region calculation unit 13 calculates a classification, a moving direction, a moving speed, an invasion frequency, and the like of a representative moving object invading the region by statistical processing, and stores the information in the server storage unit 30 as the invasion frequent occurrence region data group 33.”)
generate a route on which the moving body moves, in accordance with a point added to the region.
(Gabriel – [0075] “The invasion risk calculation unit 113 of the traveling control device 100 collates the invasion frequent occurrence region with the blind spot region acquired from the sensor recognition data group 133 based on the invasion frequent occurrence region data group 136 acquired by the intra-vehicle transmission and reception unit 115, the vehicle information data group 131 and the sensor recognition data group 133 acquired by the sensor information acquisition unit 111, and calculates the invasion risk” [0076] “The traveling control planning unit 114 of the traveling control device 100 plans a trajectory of traveling control of the vehicle 2 based on the invasion risk data group 137 acquired by the invasion risk calculation unit 113, and generates the control command value or the like for following the trajectory. The planned trajectory, the control command value, and the like of the vehicle 2 are output to the intra-vehicle transmission and reception unit 115 as the traveling control data group 138.”)
Regarding claim 3,
Gabriel teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Gabriel further teaches:
wherein the calculating calculates the point to be added for each time zone according to a frequency at which an obstacle appears in the region for each time zone.
(Gabriel – [0092] “Based on these pieces of information, for example, the frequent occurrence region can be provided for each time, and a tendency of the invasion event for each time zone can be expressed. Specifically, for example, in a case where many invasion events occur between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM in a specific place B but an event does not occur between 12:00 and 13:00, the frequent occurrence region may be set only in a case where the vehicle travels in the specific place B between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM.”)
Regarding claim 5,
Gabriel teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Gabriel further teaches:
wherein the calculating adds a point based on information regarding a type of the obstacle to the point to be added according to information regarding a type of the obstacle appearing in the region.
(Gabriel – [0048] “The invasion event data group 135 is a set of a state and a behavior of a moving object, event specification information, and the like which are generated by the invasion event specification unit 112 and are necessary for calculating the invasion frequent occurrence region data group 136. The state of the moving object is, for example, the positional information in the moving object in the geographic coordinate system, the classification information (pedestrian, vehicle, or the like) of the moving object, or the like. The behavior of the moving object is, for example, the moving direction, the speed, the acceleration, and the like of the moving object.”)
Regarding claim 8,
Claim 8 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 3 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 5 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15,
Claim 15 recites a device comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17,
Claim 17 recites a device comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 3 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19,
Claim 19 recites a device comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 5 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21,
Gabriel teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Gabriel further teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a processor to perform the method according to claim 8.
(Gabriel – [0043] “The on-vehicle storage unit 130 includes, for example, a storage device such as a hard disk drive (HDD), a flash memory, and a read only memory (ROM), and a memory such as a random-access memory (RAM). The on-vehicle storage unit 130 stores a program processed by the on-vehicle processing unit 110, a data group necessary for the processing, and the like. In addition, as a main storage when the on-vehicle processing unit 110 executes the program, the on-vehicle storage unit is also used for temporarily storing data necessary for arithmetic processing of the program.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabriel et al. (US 20240300523 A1) in view of Sonoura (US 20180267540 A1).
Regarding claim 2,
Gabriel teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Gabriel does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Sonoura teaches:
wherein the caluculating performs calculation in such a way to increase the point to be added as a number of times whether there is an obstacle in the region is changed is increased.
(Sonoura – [0114] “The integrated map information indicates, for example, higher existence accuracy between converted existence accuracy, which is obtained by converting the existence frequency of the obstacle for each grid, and existence accuracy indicated by the second intermediate map information. The converted existence accuracy is set to increase when the existence frequency of the obstacle increases.”)
Gabriel and Sonoura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of determining the frequency of an appearance of an obstacle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gabriel with Sonoura to include measuring an increase in existence frequency in order to create a system that makes it easier to cope with dynamic and quasi-static obstacles during autonomous movement (Sonoura, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 4,
Gabriel teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Gabriel does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Sonoura teaches:
wherein the calculating converts a frequency at which the obstacle appears in the region into a frequency, and calculates the point to be added to be larger as a high frequency component included in a frequency at which the obstacle appears in the converted region is larger.
(Sonoura – [0113] “For example, the path planning unit 123 directly refers to the change map information and determines the presence or absence of a grid in which the existence frequency of the obstacle on the first movement path is greater than or equal to a predetermined existence frequency threshold value. When it is determined that there is a grid whose existence frequency is greater than or equal to the predetermined existence frequency threshold value, the path planning unit 123 determines that a speed lower than a predetermined standard target speed is a target speed, and sets target speed information indicating the determined target speed.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gabriel with Sonoura to include measuring an increase in existence frequency in order to create a system that makes it easier to cope with dynamic and quasi-static obstacles during autonomous movement (Sonoura, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 6,
Gabriel teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Gabriel does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Sonoura teaches:
wherein the generating adds a point to a region adjacent to the region in response to the point to be added in the region being larger than a first threshold to generate a route on which the moving body moves, and
the adjacent region constitutes the location where the moving body moves.
(Sonoura – [0113] “When it is determined that there is a grid whose existence frequency is greater than or equal to the predetermined existence frequency threshold value, the path planning unit 123 determines that a speed lower than a predetermined standard target speed is a target speed, and sets target speed information indicating the determined target speed. Also, the path planning unit 123 may determine an avoidance path that avoids a section passing through a grid where the existence frequency is greater than or equal to the predetermined existence frequency threshold value as in the case in which interference with an obstacle occurs.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gabriel with Sonoura to include measuring an the frequency with respect to a threshold in order to create a system that makes it easier to cope with dynamic and quasi-static obstacles during autonomous movement (Sonoura, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 7,
Gabriel teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Gabriel does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Sonoura teaches:
wherein the generating generates a route on which the moving body moves again in response to a change in a frequency of appearance of an obstacle appearing in the region, the obstacle being used for calculation of the point to be added, beyond a second threshold.
(Sonoura – [0112] “The third map generating unit 1225 generates change map information indicating an existence frequency of the obstacle for each grid as a first example of the third map information on the basis of stored map information acquired from the second map generating unit 1222. More specifically, the third map generating unit 1225 counts the number of times that an event in which there is a change from a state in which accuracy information is less than the n.sup.th nonexistence accuracy threshold value for each grid to a state in which the accuracy information is greater than or equal to the n.sup.th existence accuracy threshold value occurred as an existence frequency during a predetermined observation period using n.sup.th stored map information.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gabriel with Sonoura to include measuring a change in existence frequency in order to create a system that makes it easier to cope with dynamic and quasi-static obstacles during autonomous movement (Sonoura, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 8 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 2 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 4 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 6 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14,
Claim 14 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 7 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16,
Claim 16 recites a device comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 2 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18,
Claim 18 recites a device comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 4 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Ono et al. (US 20150057871 A1) discloses extracting a stationary object and a moving object in parts from the acquired object shape data. The extraction unit superimposes a plurality of measured shapes at different times from past before a given time to present, calculates their appearance frequencies to separate a stationary object from a moving object, and extracts respective object shape data of the stationary object and the moving object.
Nishimura et al. (US 20200042802 A1) discloses executing a detection process of detecting a predetermined object in a captured moving image that includes each of the plurality of captured still images as a frame, calculates the number of times that the predetermined object is detected of a section of a predetermined amount of time while changing a position of the section, and determines position information of a candidate start point of a traffic disturbance site on the road based on the position information of the vehicle at a time when at least one captured still image included in the section when the number of times that the predetermined object is detected exceeds a first reference number, is generated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMES LEE can be reached at (571)-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights