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 .
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9 recites “a control unit configured:”, followed by limitations “to transmit” and “not to transmit”. This is improper grammar and improper use of the colon. Line 9 should read “a control unit configured to:”, where the following limitations should then read as “. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 13 recites “a control unit configured:”, followed by limitations “to transmit” and “not to transmit”. This is improper grammar and improper use of the colon. Line 9 should read “a control unit configured to:”, where the following limitations should then read as “. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 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.
The limitation “the map information being literately updated” is unclear. Specifically, the meaning of “literately” is unclear, making it unclear how the “map information” is “literately updated”. The specification provides no clarification, as the specification does not recite the word “literately”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See below.
Claim 1 is 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 control apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis 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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A control apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to:
receive, from a mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object; and
acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object; and
a control unit configured:
to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information; and
not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information” limitation, a user may mentally determine that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information. Regarding the “and not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information” limitation, a user may mentally determine that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information, and then not transmit.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
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 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”):
A control apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to:
receive, from a mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object; and
acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object; and
a control unit configured:
to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information; and
not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “A control apparatus”, the “control apparatus” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitations “an acquisition unit configured to: receive, from a mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object; and acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object", the “acquisition unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than generic computer component used to apply the exception, and the “receive” and “acquire” limitations amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “a control unit configured: to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon”, the “control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than generic computer component used to apply the exception. Furthermore, the limitation “to transmit, to an external device” amounts to mere transmitting of data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. Additionally, the Examiner notes for the record that if the “predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied”, no transmission is required to occur.
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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “control apparatus” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “acquisition unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “receive” and “acquire” limitations amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the “control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than generic computer component used to apply the exception, and the limitation “to transmit, to an external device” amounts to mere transmitting of data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 2-5 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-5 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
As per Claim 2, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally determine that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied when a weather around the mobile object included in the surrounding-environment information is one of bad weathers, therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 3, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The limitation “acquire map information on a map used by the driving assistance” amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, a user may mentally determine that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied when a last updated day and time of a part of the map information is on and after a predetermined threshold day and time, therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 4, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally determine that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied when the driving assistance is unlikely to be possible on the road, therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 5, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally determine that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied upon determination that the driver is not frustrated based on the driver information, therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 is 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 6 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 6 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I 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.
Independent claim 6 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 6 recites:
A system comprising:
at least one mobile object;
an acquisition unit configured to:
receive, from the at least one mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the at least one mobile object; and
acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object;
a determiner configured to determine whether a predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information on the at least one mobile object; and
a control unit configured:
to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information; and
not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “determine whether a predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information on the at least one mobile object” limitation, a user may mentally determine whether a predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information on the at least one mobile object. Regarding the “determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information” limitation, a user may mentally determine that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information. Regarding the “not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non- transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information” limitation, a user may mentally determine that the predetermined non- transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information, and then not transmit.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
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 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”):
A system comprising:
at least one mobile object;
an acquisition unit configured to:
receive, from the at least one mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the at least one mobile object; and
acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object;
a determiner configured to determine whether a predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information on the at least one mobile object; and
a control unit configured:
to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information; and
not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “at least one mobile object”, the “at least one mobile object” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer used to apply the exception, where the generic computer is capable of being “mobile”. Regarding the additional limitations “an acquisition unit configured to: receive, from the at least one mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the at least one mobile object; and acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object", the “acquisition unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than generic computer component used to apply the exception, and the “receive” and “acquire” limitations amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “a determiner configured to”, the “determiner” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitations “a control unit configured: to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon”, the “control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than generic computer component used to apply the exception. Furthermore, the limitation “to transmit, to an external device” amounts to mere transmitting of data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. Additionally, the Examiner notes for the record that if the “predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied”, no transmission is required to occur.
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 Revised Guidance, independent claim 6 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 “at least one mobile object” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer used to apply the exception, the “acquisition unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “receive” and “acquire” limitations amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the “determiner” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than generic computer component used to apply the exception, the limitation “to transmit, to an external device” amounts to mere transmitting of data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 7-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 7-8 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. Therefore, dependent claims 7-8 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 6-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
As per Claim 7, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 6. The limitations “a computer” and “a storage” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than generic computer components used to apply the exception. The limitation “iteratively collect” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, a user may mentally generate a new driving-assist control model. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 8, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 6. The “driving control unit” is merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and the claim is directed to an intended use of “one of the updated driving-assist control model and the generated new driving- assist control model”, where the limitation “and when one of the updated driving-assist control model and the generated new driving-assist control model is installed in the at least one mobile object” indicates an intended use, as seen by the use of “when”. Therefore, the claim is directed to an intended use of a “model” in a particular technological environment, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 is 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 9 is directed to a control method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I 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.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 9 recites:
A method of controlling a mobile object, the method comprising:
receiving, from a mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object;
acquiring, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object;
determining to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information; and
determining not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “determining to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information” limitation, a user may mentally determine to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information. Regarding the “determining not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information” limitation, a user may mentally determine not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
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 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”):
A method of controlling a mobile object, the method comprising:
receiving, from a mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object;
acquiring, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object;
determining to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information; and
determining not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information.
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.
The Examiner first notes for the record that no structure or device is recited as performing the “receiving” or the “acquiring” steps. Regarding the additional limitation “receiving, from a mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object”, this limitation amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “acquiring, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object”, this limitation amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 Revised Guidance, independent claim 9 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, no structure or device is recited as performing the “receiving” or the “acquiring” steps, and the limitation “receiving, from a mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the limitation “acquiring, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 10 is 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 10 is directed to a program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 10 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I 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.
Independent claim 10 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 10 recites:
A program product for controlling a mobile object, the program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium that stores program instructions that cause a processor included in the mobile object to:
receive, from the mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object;
acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object;
determine to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information; and
determine not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “determine to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information” limitation, a user may mentally determine to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information. Regarding the “determine not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information” limitation, a user may mentally determine not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
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 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”):
A program product for controlling a mobile object, the program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium that stores program instructions that cause a processor included in the mobile object to:
receive, from the mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object;
acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object;
determine to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information; and
determine not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “A program product for controlling a mobile object, the program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium that stores program instructions that cause a processor included in the mobile object to”, the “non-transitory storage medium that stores program instructions” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation “receive, from the mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object”, this limitation amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object”, this limitation amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 Revised Guidance, independent claim 10 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 “non-transitory storage medium that stores program instructions” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, the limitation “receive, from the mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the limitation “acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible under 35 USC §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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishida et al. (JP2020104547A).
Regarding Claim 9, Nishida et al. teaches the claimed method of controlling a mobile object, the method comprising:
receiving, from a mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object (“The comparison result is acquired from the recognition result comparison unit 1d (S2). Then, it is determined whether the comparison result is "match" or "mismatch"”, see P[0026], also see P[0023]-P[0025]);
acquiring, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object (“When the comparison result of the S3 is "difference", the failure probability calculation unit 1e acquires the environmental information from the environmental information acquiring unit 1c(S4), and acquires the environmental characteristic of each external sensor from the environmental characteristic storage unit 1b (S5). Then, based on these pieces of information, an abnormal (recognition failed) external sensor is specified (S6)”, see P[0027]);
determining to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information; and
determining not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information (“The failure outputting unit 1g receives the failure determination information from the failure determining unit 1f, and notifies the driver of the automobile 2, a repair shop, or the like of the failure determination information via the communication unit 21”, see P[0035]).
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 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (JP2020104547A) in view of Ushiba et al. (10,176,720).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishida et al. teaches the claimed control apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit (“…failure probability calculation unit 1e…”, see P[0026]) configured to:
receive, from a mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object (“The comparison result is acquired from the recognition result comparison unit 1d (S2). Then, it is determined whether the comparison result is "match" or "mismatch"”, see P[0026], also see P[0023]-P[0025]); and
acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object (“When the comparison result of the S3 is "difference", the failure probability calculation unit 1e acquires the environmental information from the environmental information acquiring unit 1c(S4), and acquires the environmental characteristic of each external sensor from the environmental characteristic storage unit 1b (S5). Then, based on these pieces of information, an abnormal (recognition failed) external sensor is specified (S6)”, see P[0027]); and
a control unit configured:
to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information…(“The failure outputting unit 1g receives the failure determination information from the failure determining unit 1f, and notifies the driver of the automobile 2, a repair shop, or the like of the failure determination information via the communication unit 21”, see P[0035]); and
not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non- transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information (“The failure outputting unit 1g receives the failure determination information from the failure determining unit 1f, and notifies the driver of the automobile 2, a repair shop, or the like of the failure determination information via the communication unit 21”, see P[0035]).
Nishida et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information.
However, Nishida et al. does teach an embodiment where vehicle position information is collected from a vehicle when an abnormality occurs in the vehicle (“The abnormality information accumulation unit 41a of the datacenter 41 collects sensor information, position information, and environmental information when an abnormality occurs (recognition fails) in the external sensor 3 of the other vehicles 42, and accumulates the information in the recognition abnormality storage unit 41b”, see P[0042]).
Furthermore, Ushiba et al. (10,176,720) teaches notifying a management center of a current position when a fault has occurred in a vehicle (Ushiba et al.; see col.11, particularly lines 22-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nishida et al. with the teachings of Ushiba et al., and the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information, as rendered obvious by Ushiba et al., in order to provide “notification of a vehicle with fault” where “it may be considered to notify…a current position” to a “management center”, and “to receive based on the notification an offer of information on a place enabling the vehicle to stop safely from the management center” (Ushiba et al.; see col.11, lines 22-31).
Regarding Claim 2, Nishida et al. teaches the claimed control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the traveling-related information includes surrounding- environment information indicative of surrounding environments around the mobile object (“When the comparison result of the S3 is "difference", the failure probability calculation unit 1eacquires the environmental information from the environmental information acquiring unit 1c(S4), and acquires the environmental characteristic of each external sensor from the environmental characteristic storage unit 1b (S5). Then, based on these pieces of information, an abnormal (recognition failed) external sensor is specified (S6)”, see P[0027]); and
the control unit is configured to determine that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied when a weather around the mobile object included in the surrounding-environment information is one of bad weathers (“When the abnormal sensor is specified in the S6, it is determined whether or not the abnormality is caused by an environmental factor (S7). For example, in the overlap region D of the detection ranges of the millimeter wave radar and the camera, in a case where it can be determined that the abnormality is clearly caused by the environmental factor, such as a case where the camera whose environmental characteristics under the "fog" condition are inferior is determined as the abnormal sensor, + 1 is added to the abnormality probability of the abnormal sensor (S8), and the process for the overlap region D is ended”, see P[0029]).
Regarding Claim 4, Nishida et al. teaches the claimed control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the traveling-related information includes road information on a road to which the malfunction positional information belongs (“…in addition to the determination as to whether the abnormality is caused by the environmental factor as in the first embodiment, it is also determined whether the abnormality is caused by the location factor. For example, even if it is not determined that it is caused by the environment, it is determined that it is near the own vehicle position…If there are many abnormalities of the same type of external sensor (regardless of a vehicle or another vehicle), it is determined that the abnormality is caused by the location”, see P[0046]); and
the control unit is configured to determine that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied when the driving assistance is unlikely to be possible on the road (“…in addition to the determination as to whether the abnormality is caused by the environmental factor as in the first embodiment, it is also determined whether the abnormality is caused by the location factor. For example, even if it is not determined that it is caused by the environment, it is determined that it is near the own vehicle position…If there are many abnormalities of the same type of external sensor (regardless of a vehicle or another vehicle), it is determined that the abnormality is caused by the location”, see P[0046]).
Regarding Claim 6, Nishida et al. teaches the claimed system comprising:
at least one mobile object (“…vehicle…”, see P[0015]);
an acquisition unit (“…failure probability calculation unit 1e…”, see P[0026]) configured to:
receive, from the at least one mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the at least one mobile object (“The comparison result is acquired from the recognition result comparison unit 1d (S2). Then, it is determined whether the comparison result is "match" or "mismatch"”, see P[0026], also see P[0023]-P[0025]); and
acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object (“When the comparison result of the S3 is "difference", the failure probability calculation unit 1e acquires the environmental information from the environmental information acquiring unit 1c(S4), and acquires the environmental characteristic of each external sensor from the environmental characteristic storage unit 1b (S5). Then, based on these pieces of information, an abnormal (recognition failed) external sensor is specified (S6)”, see P[0027]);
a determiner configured to determine whether a predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information on the at least one mobile object (“The failure outputting unit 1g receives the failure determination information from the failure determining unit 1f, and notifies the driver of the automobile 2, a repair shop, or the like of the failure determination information via the communication unit 21”, see P[0035]); and
a control unit configured:
to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information…(“The failure outputting unit 1g receives the failure determination information from the failure determining unit 1f, and notifies the driver of the automobile 2, a repair shop, or the like of the failure determination information via the communication unit 21”, see P[0035]); and
not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non- transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information (“The failure outputting unit 1g receives the failure determination information from the failure determining unit 1f, and notifies the driver of the automobile 2, a repair shop, or the like of the failure determination information via the communication unit 21”, see P[0035]).
Nishida et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information.
However, Nishida et al. does teach an embodiment where vehicle position information is collected from a vehicle when an abnormality occurs in the vehicle (“The abnormality information accumulation unit 41a of the datacenter 41 collects sensor information, position information, and environmental information when an abnormality occurs (recognition fails) in the external sensor 3 of the other vehicles 42, and accumulates the information in the recognition abnormality storage unit 41b”, see P[0042]).
Furthermore, Ushiba et al. (10,176,720) teaches notifying a management center of a current position when a fault has occurred in a vehicle (Ushiba et al.; see col.11, particularly lines 22-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nishida et al. with the teachings of Ushiba et al., and the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information, as rendered obvious by Ushiba et al., in order to provide “notification of a vehicle with fault” where “it may be considered to notify…a current position” to a “management center”, and “to receive based on the notification an offer of information on a place enabling the vehicle to stop safely from the management center” (Ushiba et al.; see col.11, lines 22-31).
Regarding Claim 7, Nishida et al. teaches the claimed system according to claim 6, further comprising:
the external device (“…a database in which the abnormalities of the external environment sensors 3 collected from a large number of vehicles are accumulated in association with the position information thereof is constructed”, see P[0042] and “…data center 41…”, see P[0043]), wherein:
the external device comprises a computer and a storage (“…an abnormality information accumulation unit 41b and a recognized abnormality storage unit LA are present in a datacenter 41”, see P[0041]);
the computer of the external device is configured to:
access the at least one mobile object to iteratively collect, from the at least one mobile object, actual driving-action relevant data that includes positional data of the at least one mobile object, actual driving-operation data of the at least one mobile object, and surrounding environment data around the at least one mobile object (“The abnormality information accumulation unit 41a of the datacenter 41 collects sensor information, position information, and environmental information when an abnormality occurs (recognition fails) in the external sensor 3 of the other vehicles 42, and accumulates the information in the recognition abnormality storage unit 41b”, see P[0042]);
perform at least one of:
updating of a driving-assist control model stored in the storage based on the collected actual driving-action relevant data items and the malfunction information on the at least one mobile object (“The abnormality information accumulation unit 41a of the datacenter 41 collects sensor information, position information, and environmental information when an abnormality occurs (recognition fails) in the external sensor 3 of the other vehicles 42, and accumulates the information in the recognition abnormality storage unit 41b”, see P[0042]), the driving-assist control model being used for driving assistance of the at least one mobile object (“As a result, the accumulated information acquiring unit 1i in the vehicle 2 can acquire the information on the other vehicles 42 accumulated in the abnormality information accumulating unit 41a in the data center 41, and reflect the information on the calculation of the failure probability in the failure probability calculating unit 1e”, see P[0043]); and
generation of a new driving-assist control model used for driving assistance of the at least one mobile object based on the collected actual driving-action relevant data items and the malfunction information on the at least one mobile object.
Regarding Claim 10, Nishida et al. teaches the claimed program product for controlling a mobile object, the program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium that stores program instructions that cause a processor included in the mobile object to:
receive, from the mobile object, a malfunction occurrence trigger indicative of an occurrence of at least one malfunction in driving assistance of the mobile object (“The comparison result is acquired from the recognition result comparison unit 1d (S2). Then, it is determined whether the comparison result is "match" or "mismatch"”, see P[0026], also see P[0023]-P[0025]);
acquire, from the mobile object, in response to reception of the malfunction occurrence trigger, traveling-related information related to traveling of the mobile object (“When the comparison result of the S3 is "difference", the failure probability calculation unit 1e acquires the environmental information from the environmental information acquiring unit 1c(S4), and acquires the environmental characteristic of each external sensor from the environmental characteristic storage unit 1b (S5). Then, based on these pieces of information, an abnormal (recognition failed) external sensor is specified (S6)”, see P[0027]);
determine to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information…(“The failure outputting unit 1g receives the failure determination information from the failure determining unit 1f, and notifies the driver of the automobile 2, a repair shop, or the like of the failure determination information via the communication unit 21”, see P[0035]); and
determine not to transmit, to the external device, the malfunction information upon determination that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied based on the traveling-related information (“The failure outputting unit 1g receives the failure determination information from the failure determining unit 1f, and notifies the driver of the automobile 2, a repair shop, or the like of the failure determination information via the communication unit 21”, see P[0035]).
Nishida et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
determine to transmit, to an external device, malfunction information upon determination that a predetermined non-transmission requirement is not satisfied based on the traveling-related information, the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information.
However, Nishida et al. does teach an embodiment where vehicle position information is collected from a vehicle when an abnormality occurs in the vehicle (“The abnormality information accumulation unit 41a of the datacenter 41 collects sensor information, position information, and environmental information when an abnormality occurs (recognition fails) in the external sensor 3 of the other vehicles 42, and accumulates the information in the recognition abnormality storage unit 41b”, see P[0042]).
Furthermore, Ushiba et al. (10,176,720) teaches notifying a management center of a current position when a fault has occurred in a vehicle (Ushiba et al.; see col.11, particularly lines 22-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nishida et al. with the teachings of Ushiba et al., and the malfunction information including positional information on the mobile object as malfunction positional information, as rendered obvious by Ushiba et al., in order to provide “notification of a vehicle with fault” where “it may be considered to notify…a current position” to a “management center”, and “to receive based on the notification an offer of information on a place enabling the vehicle to stop safely from the management center” (Ushiba et al.; see col.11, lines 22-31).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (JP2020104547A) in view of Ushiba et al. (10,176,720) further in view of Tanaka et al. (2021/0306361).
Regarding Claim 3, Nishida et al. teaches the claimed control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
…
the traveling-related information includes the malfunction positional information (“…self-position information of the vehicles 2”, see P[0022]).
Nishida et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
the acquisition unit is configured to acquire map information on a map used by the driving assistance, the map information being literately updated;
the traveling-related information includes the malfunction positional information; and
the control unit is configured to determine that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied when a last updated day and time of a part of the map information is on and after a predetermined threshold day and time, the part of the map information including the malfunction positional information.
However, Tanaka et al. (2021/0306361) teaches determining a likelihood of failure using an error log that indicates that an anomaly has been detected if the error log “includes a timestamp indicating date and time within a predetermined period” (Tanaka et al.; see P[0048]), where positional information is also included in the logs (Tanaka et al.; see P[0051]), which renders obvious updating a map comprising position information with the logs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nishida et al. with the teachings of Tanaka et al., and the acquisition unit is configured to acquire map information on a map used by the driving assistance, the map information being literately updated, and the control unit is configured to determine that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied when a last updated day and time of a part of the map information is on and after a predetermined threshold day and time, the part of the map information including the malfunction positional information, as rendered obvious by Tanaka et al., in order to determine “whether there is a likelihood of a failure” (Tanaka et al.; see P[0048]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (JP2020104547A) in view of Ushiba et al. (10,176,720) further in view of Lota (2021/0133906).
Regarding Claim 5, Nishida et al. teaches the claimed control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the traveling-related information includes information includes driver information indicative of a condition of a driver of the mobile object; and
the control unit is configured to determine that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied upon determination that the driver is not frustrated based on the driver information.
However, Lota (2021/0133906) teaches inferring a disabled condition of a vehicle based on a vehicle driver emotional state such as a “frustrated” emotional state (Lota; see P[0025]-P[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nishida et al. with the teachings of Lota, and wherein the traveling-related information includes information includes driver information indicative of a condition of a driver of the mobile object, and the control unit is configured to determine that the predetermined non-transmission requirement is satisfied upon determination that the driver is not frustrated based on the driver information, as rendered obvious by Lota, in order to “detect automatically that vehicle…is in a disabled condition” (Lota; see P[0026]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (JP2020104547A) in view of Ushiba et al. (10,176,720) further in view of Chan et al. (10,019,904), further in view of Sogen et al. (2018/0056992).
Regarding Claim 8, Nishida et al. teaches the claimed system according to claim 7, wherein:
the at least one mobile object includes a driving control unit configured to cause the at least one mobile object to travel in a selected one of an autonomous driving mode and a manual driving mode (“…and a driving mode determination unit that determines a driving mode of automatic driving that can be adopted by the vehicle based on the failure probability of each of the plurality of external sensors”, see P[0009] and “…cancellation of automated driving (such as transition to manual driving by the driver)”, see P[0037]).
Nishida et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
and when one of the updated driving-assist control model and the generated new driving-assist control model is installed in the at least one mobile object that is traveling in the autonomous driving mode, one of the updated driving-assist control model and the generated new driving-assist control model is configured to cause, before the at least one object reaches a position based on the malfunction position information, the driving control unit to terminate the autonomous driving mode and instruct a driver of the mobile object to control operations of the at least one mobile object in the manual driving mode.
Nishida et al. does teach using the equivalent of the claimed “one of the updated driving-assist control model and the generated new driving-assist control model is installed in the at least one mobile object that is traveling in the autonomous driving mode” in order to cause cancellation of automated driving based on “position information” (“Further, according to the failure detection device 1 of the present embodiment, when the recognition results of the respective external sensors in the overlapping region of the detection ranges A of the plurality of external sensors 3 are different from each other, the abnormal sensor is specified based on the current environmental information and the superiority or inferiority of the environmental characteristics of the respective external sensors. Then, it is determined whether or not the abnormality of the external sensor is caused by the environment, an accuracy of a failure (a state in which an abnormal state constantly continues due to a failure, a positional deviation, or the like of a part or all of the external sensors and repair is necessary) is calculated, and the failure of the external sensor is determined based on the accuracy of the failure. As a result, it is possible to distinguish between an abnormality and a failure of the external sensor, and to prevent unnecessary cancellation of automated driving (such as transition to manual driving by the driver)”, see P[0037]).
However, Chan et al. (10,019,904) teaches “cause, before the at least one object reaches a position based on the malfunction position information, the driving control unit to terminate the autonomous driving mode” (Chan et al.; “…an autonomous vehicle may…disengage certain autonomous features when approaching…a hazardous area”, see col.4, particularly lines 21-40 and “…facilitate the vehicle navigation or control system automatically dis-engaging a vehicle self-driving feature or system as the autonomous vehicle approaches…one or more hazardous areas”, see col.26, particularly lines 45-67 and col.27, particularly lines 1-14).
Furthermore, Sogen et al. (2018/0056992) teaches “instruct a driver of the mobile object to control operations of the at least one mobile object in the manual driving mode” (Sogen et al.; “The vehicles 2 may inform drivers that the vehicles 2 are approaching the sections where autonomous driving is difficult, or may advice the drivers to travel in the sections where autonomous driving is difficult by manual driving”, see P[0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nishida et al. with the teachings of Chan et al. and Sogen et al., and when one of the updated driving-assist control model and the generated new driving-assist control model is installed in the at least one mobile object that is traveling in the autonomous driving mode, one of the updated driving-assist control model and the generated new driving-assist control model is configured to cause, before the at least one object reaches a position based on the malfunction position information, the driving control unit to terminate the autonomous driving mode and instruct a driver of the mobile object to control operations of the at least one mobile object in the manual driving mode, as rendered obvious by Chan et al. and Sogen et al. as explained above, so that “hazardous area risk may be minimized” (Chan et al.; see col.25, particularly lines 48-50), and in order to “inform drivers” that “vehicles…are approaching the sections where autonomous driving is difficult” (Sogen et al.; see P[0042]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights