www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/299,564
`
`03/12/2019
`
`Takahiro NISHI
`
`2019-0413A
`
`2642
`
`an
`Lind&
`Wenderoth,
`Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P.
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`ZAYKOVA-FELDMAN, LYUDMILA
`
`2865
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/01/2021
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`eoa@ wenderoth.com
`kmiller@wenderoth.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-12 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)____is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20210518
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/299 564
`NISHI et al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`Lyudmila Zaykova-Feldman
`2865
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 02/17/2021.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)L) This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`Examiner Note
`
`The indicated allowability of Claims 2-10 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered
`
`reference to US20180151070 to Katou et al. Rejection based on the newly cited reference
`
`follow.
`
`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 moreclaims 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-AlA), 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 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the
`
`applicant), regards as the invention.
`
`Regarding Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation: “a small space having a
`
`predetermined size and located a predetermined distance ahead of a current position of the
`
`mobile object.” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure,
`
`material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure,
`
`material, or acts to the function.
`
`The limitation “a small space having a predetermined size and located a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 3
`
`predetermined distance ahead of a current position of the mobile object” is not described in
`
`the specification. It is the generic term, and no details are provided for the person skilled in the
`
`art to understand what the “small space” actually is.
`
`Same reasoning applies to claims 5, 8-10, and 12, and further dependentclaim 11.
`
`Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AlIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
`
`Claim limitation “a small space having a predetermined size and located a
`
`predetermined distance ahead of a current position of the mobile object” invokes 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to
`
`disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed
`
`function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim
`
`is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
`
`Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the
`
`applicant), regards as the invention.
`
`Regarding Claim 12: Claim 12 recites the limitation: “a creator that creates second
`
`three-dimensional data based on information detected by the sensor and the first three-
`
`dimensional data.” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding
`
`structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the
`
`structure, material, or acts to the function.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 4
`
`The limitation “a creator that creates second three-dimensional data based on
`
`information detected by the sensor and the first three-dimensional data” is not described in the
`
`specification. It is the generic term, and no details are provided for the person skilled in the art
`
`to understand what the “a creator” actually is.
`
`Therefore, the claim is indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
`
`Claim limitation “a creator that creates second three-dimensional data based on
`
`information detected by the sensor and the first three-dimensional data ” invokes 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to
`
`disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed
`
`function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim
`
`is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
`
`Applicant may:
`
`(a)
`
`Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
`
`(b)
`
`Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what
`
`structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any
`
`new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
`
`(c)
`
`Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure,
`
`material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without
`
`introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 5
`
`If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already
`
`implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links
`
`them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure,
`
`material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
`
`(a)
`
`Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the
`
`corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and
`
`clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function,
`
`without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
`
`(b)
`
`Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are
`
`implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform
`
`the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(0)
`
`and 2181.
`
`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 requirementsofthis title.
`
`Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,or an
`
`abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed
`
`below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons
`
`discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 6
`
`amountto significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed
`
`below.
`
`Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are
`
`to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the
`
`claim belongs to one of the statutory classes of a process (method claim 1) and a
`
`product (apparatus Claim 12).
`
`Step 2A of the 2019 Guidanceis divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the
`
`examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the
`
`abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts,
`
`mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
`
`Claim 1 is copied below,with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea
`
`highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
`
`1. Athree-dimensional data creation method for use ina mobile object including a
`
`sensor and a communication unit that transmits and receives three-dimensional
`
`data to and from an external device, the three-dimensional data creation method
`
`COMBTESINg:
`
`creating second three-dimensional data based on information detected by the
`
`sensar and first three-cimensional data received by the conmmunication unit; and
`
`transmitting, to the external device, third three-dimensional data that is part of
`
`the second three-dimensional data,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 7
`
`wherein the third three-dimensional data is three-dimensional data of a small
`
`space having a predetermined size and located a predetermined distance ahead of
`
`a current position of the mobile oblect in a traveling direction of the mobile object.
`
`Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are
`
`to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls
`
`within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35
`
`U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above
`
`claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
`
`Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial
`
`exception (abstract idea). In the aboveclaim, the highlighted portion constitutes an
`
`abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites
`
`limitations that fall into-recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the
`
`2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance,it falls into the grouping of
`
`subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical
`
`concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations,
`
`mathematical calculations).
`
`For example, the step of “creating second three-dimensional data based on
`
`information detected by the sensor and first three-dimensional data received by
`
`the communication unit’ is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical
`
`concept grouping and the step “wherein the third three-dimensional data is three-
`
`dimensional data of a small space having a predetermined size and located a
`
`predeterminad distance ahead of a current position of the mobile oblect in a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 8
`
`traveling direction of the mobile ablect” is treated by the Examiner as belonging to
`
`mental and/or mathematical concept grouping.
`
`Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 12.
`
`Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites
`
`a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
`
`In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that
`
`integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
`
`The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
`
`in Claim 1:
`
`-
`
`“& three-dimensional data creation method for use in a mobile object including a
`
`sensor and a communication unit that transmits and receives three-dimensional
`
`data te and from an external device”:
`
`-
`
`“transmitting, to the external device, third three-cimensional data that is cart of the
`
`second three-dimensional data”,
`
`in Claim 12:
`
`-
`
`-
`
`“A three-dimensional data creation device equinped in a mobile object”,
`
`“asensar™:
`
`"a receiver that receives first three-dimensional data from an external device”;
`
`“a transmitter that transmits, to the external device, third three-dimensional data
`
`that is part of the second three-dimensicnal data”.
`
`in Claim 4, the additional elements in the preamble of “A three-dimensional data
`
`creation method for use ina mobile object including a sensor arud a communication unit
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 9
`
`that transmits and receives three-dimensional data to and from an external device” and
`
`limitations of “transmitting, to the external device, third three-dimensional data that is
`
`part of the second three-dimensional data” and “wherein the third three-dimensional
`
`data is three-dimensionai data of a small space having a predetermined size and locateci
`
`a predetermined distance ahead of a current position of the mobile object in a traveling
`
`direction of the mobile abiect” are not qualified for a meaningful imitation because it js
`
`only generally links the use of the judicial exception to @ particular technological
`
`environment or field of use. Transrnitting, to the external device, third three-
`
`dimensional data that is part of the second three-dimensional data represents a mere
`
`data transmitting step and only adds an insignificant extra solution activity to the
`
`judicial exception. A sensor (generic sensor} and a cornmunication unit (generic unit) are
`
`generally recited and do not qualify as a particular machine.
`
`Similar imitations that are recited in Claim 12 (generic sensor, receiver, and
`
`transmitter} are also generally recited and represent extra-solution activity to the
`
`judicial exception.
`
`in conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in
`
`combination with the other claim elements do nat reflect an improvement to other
`
`technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into
`
`a practical apolication. Therefore, the clairns are directed to a judicial exception and
`
`require further analysis under the Step 26.
`
`However, the above claims, do not include additional elements that are
`
`sufficient fo amcunt to significantly more than the judicial axception because they are
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 10
`
`generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced
`
`by the prior art of record (Step 26 analysis}.
`
`The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
`
`With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 2-11 provide additional
`
`features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be
`
`considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong
`
`One}, recite no additional elements reflecting a oractical application (Step2A, Prong
`
`Two}, and faila “significantly more” test under the step 28 for the same reasans as
`
`discussed with regards to the independent claims.
`
`The dependent claims are, therefore, giso ineligible.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would
`
`be the same under either status.
`
`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 ordinaryskill in the art to which the
`claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention
`was made.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 11
`
`The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousnessor
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of
`
`the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly owned as ofthe effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
`
`evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to
`
`point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly
`
`ownedas of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to
`
`consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
`
`prior art against the later invention.
`
`Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`US20070030212 to Shibata (Shibata)
`
`in view of US20060007022 to Endo et al.
`
`(Endo
`
`and in further view of US20180151070 to Katou et al. (hereinafter Katou).
`
`Regarding Claim 1: The reference of Shibata teaches:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 12
`
`-
`
`“A three-dimensional data creation method for use in a mobile object including a sensor
`
`and a communication unit that transmits and receives three-dimensional data to and
`
`from an external device” (Fig. 9; para 0048 — “234 denotes a three-dimensional
`
`measurement unit (i.e. sensor, added by examiner)”; Fig. 10; para 0051 — “The wireless
`
`communication interface 152 (i.e. communication unit, added by examiner) performs
`
`data transmission/reception with the first vehicle A);
`
`-
`
`“the three-dimensional data creation method comprising: creating second three-
`
`dimensional data based on information detected by the sensor and”(Fig. 9; para 0066 —
`
`“... a vehicle outside-image display apparatus 201 providedforthe first vehicle A... The
`
`vehicle outside-image display apparatus 201 also transmits, to the rearward vehicle, a
`
`renewed three-dimensional measurement value 261 (i.e. second three-dimensional data,
`
`added by examiner)... with a three-dimensional measurement value obtained by the
`
`three-dimensional measuring instrument 231 (i.e. sensor, added by examiner) that
`
`performs a three-dimensional measurement for an environment );
`
`-
`
`“first three-dimensional data received by the communication unit; and transmitting, to
`
`the external device, third three-dimensional data” (para 0066 — “The vehicle outside-
`
`imagedisplay apparatus 201 receives the vehicle outside-image information 222 and the
`
`three-dimensional measurement value 262(i.e. first three-dimensional data, added by
`
`examiner), and transmits, to a further rearwardvehicle, renewed vehicle outside-image
`
`information 221”; Fig. 10; para 0067 — “The wireless communication interface 252(i.e.
`
`communication unit, added by examiner) performs data transmission/reception with the
`
`first vehicle A, which is a following vehicle”; para 0068 — “The measurement value
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 13
`
`transmitting unit 235 transmits renewed three-dimensional measurement value 261(i.e.
`
`third three-dimensional data, added by examiner) produced by the measurement value
`
`combining unit 237, to the third vehicle C through the wireless communication
`
`interface 251”).
`
`The reference of Shibata does not explicitly teach that “the third three -
`
`dimensional data that is part of the second three-dimensional data”.
`
`However, the reference of Endo in the same field of endeavor of creating and
`
`transmitting multiple three-dimensional data teaches “the third three-dimensional data
`
`that is part of the second three-dimensional data” (Fig. 14; para 0062 — “In step $13, the
`
`individual sets of map data, some containing the node link connection information and
`
`the others without the node link connection information as determined through the
`
`processing executedin step S12, ... At this time, each set of the data without the node
`
`link connection information is appended with a flag indicating the absence of the node
`
`link connection information. In step S14, the map data edited in step $13 are transmitted
`
`to the request receiving server. The volume of transmission data is reduced through the
`
`methoddescribed above”).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to modify a three-dimensional data creation
`
`method, disclosed by Shibata, as taught by Endo,in order to reduce the amountof
`
`transmitted data and enhance the quality of such transmission.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 14
`
`The Shibata/Endo combination is silent on:
`
`-
`
`“wherein the third three-dimensional data is three-dimensional data of a snail space
`
`having @ predetermined size and located a predetermined distance ahead of a current
`
`position of the mobile object in a traveling direction of the mobile object”.
`
`However, Katou discloses:
`
`-
`
`“wherein the third three-dimensional data is three-dimensional data of a snail space
`
`having a predetermined size ard located a predetermined distance ahead of a current
`
`position of the mobile object in a traveling direction of the mobile object” (Fig. 10: Fig.
`
`14: para 0126 ~ “the collision risk determination section 206 sets a circular safety area
`
`(i.e. small space having a predetermined size, added by examiner) as a safety area
`
`corresponding to the target vehicle (step 1005). ... The size of the radius of the circular
`
`safety area(i.e. predetermined size, added by examiner) can be set, for example, based
`
`on the length of an arm of an excavator as the target vehicle”; para 0122 — “the collision
`
`risk determination section 206 determines that there is a possibility of a collision
`
`between the own vehicle and the target vehicle in a three-dimensional space, and the
`
`processing then proceedsto step 1009”}fe
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to modify a three-dimensional data creation
`
`method, disclosed by Shibata/Endo combination, as taught by Katou,in order to
`
`improve the safety of multi-vehicle combined operation and to avoid the collision, if the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 15
`
`space between vehicles becomes equal or smaller than the predetermined size of a
`
`small space.
`
`Regarding Claim 2: The Shibata/Endo/Katou combination discloses the three-
`
`dimensional cata creation method according te claim 1 (see reiection for Claim 4}.
`
`Regarding the limitation “wherein the creating and the transmitting are
`
`repeatedly performed”: It would have been obvious to one ofordinaryskill in the art
`
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeatedly perform the
`
`creating and transmitting operations in order to achieve the improved accuracy of
`
`estimating the distance between two objects.
`
`Regarding Claim 3: The Shibata/Endo/Katou combination discloses the three-
`
`dimensional data creation method according to claim 2 (see rejection for Claim 2).
`
`Regarding the limitation “wherein the predetermined distancevaries in
`
`accordance with a traveling speed of the mobile object”: It would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinaryskill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
`
`notice that the predetermined distance varies in accordance with a traveling speed of
`
`the mobile object, since according to the definition of speed, the faster the object
`
`moves,the longer distance it can cover during the same time interval.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 16
`
`Regarding Claim 4: The Shibata/Endo/Katou combination discloses the three-
`
`dimensional data creation method according to claim 2 (see rejection for Claim 2).
`
`Regarding the limitation “wherein the predetermined distancevaries in
`
`accordance with a traveling speed of the mobile object”: It would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinaryskill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
`
`notice that the predetermined size varies in accordance with a traveling speed of the
`
`mobile object, since according to the definition of speed, the faster the object moves,
`
`the longer distance it can cover during the same time interval.
`
`Regarding Claim 5: The Shibata/Endo/Katou combination teaches the three-
`
`dimensional data creation method according to clair 2 (see rejection for Claim 2).
`
`The reference of Katou further discloses:
`
`-
`
`“Surther carnprising: judging whether a change has occurred in the second three-
`
`dimensional data of the small space corresponding to the third three-dimensional data
`
`already transmitted” (nara G122 ~ “based on the computedrelative distance andaltitude
`
`difference, the collision risk determination section 206 calculates the angle of inclination
`
`of a line connecting the ownvehicle and the target vehicle each other, and determines
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 17
`
`whetherthe angle of inclination is not greater than a preset threshold(i.e. if the change
`
`has occurred, added by examiner)”}; and
`
`-
`
`“when the change has occurred, transmitting, to the external device, fourth three-
`
`dimensional cata that is at least part of the second three-dimensional cata in which the
`
`change has occurred” {sara 0044 - “Based on the notification from the collision risk
`
`determination section 206(i.e. the notification that the change has occurred, added by
`
`examiner), the control signal generation section 207 generatescontrol signals for
`
`performing traveling control of the own vehicle, and outputs them to the vehicle control
`
`system 104 in FIG. 1. Responsive to these control signals, the vehicle control
`
`system 104 performs traveling control of the own vehicle to avoid a collision with the
`
`anothervehicle*; para O045 - “In each safe operation assistance device 101, the own
`
`vehicle information acquisition section 202, operator notification section 203, own and
`
`other vehicle information management section 204, work mode determination
`
`section 205, collision risk determination section 206, and control signal generation
`
`section 207, all of which have been described above, may each berealized using
`
`processing by a computer(i.e. external device, added by examiner)...“}.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to modify a three-dimensional data creation
`
`method, disclosed by Shibata/Endo/Katou combination, as taught by Katou, in order to
`
`improve the safety of multi-vehicle combined operation and to avoid the collision, if the
`
`space between vehicles becomes equal or smaller than the predetermined size of a
`
`small space.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 18
`
`Regarding Claim 6: The Shibata/Endo/Katou combination teaches the three-
`
`dimensional data creation methad according te claim 5 (see rejection for Claim 5).
`
`Regarding the limitation “wherein the fourth three-dimensional data is more
`
`preferentially transmitted than the third three-dimensional data”: It would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
`
`invention to prefer the transmission of the partial data than the whole amount, in order
`
`to reduce the amountof transmitted data and enhance the quality of such transmission.
`
`Regarding Claim 7: The Shibata/Endo/Katou combination teaches the three-
`
`dimensional data creation method according to claim 6 (see rejection for Claim 6).
`
`Regarding the limitation “wherein when the change has occurred, the fourth
`
`three-dimensional data is transmitted betore the third three-dimensional data is
`
`transmitted”: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit the partial amount of data
`
`before the whole amount transmission to achieve faster and morereliable
`
`communication with the external device and to improve the safety of vehicles’
`
`operation.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/299,564
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Page 19
`
`Regarding Claim 8: The Shibata/Endo/Katou combination teaches the three-
`
`dirnensional data creation method according to claim 5 (see rejection for Claim 5).
`
`Regarding the limitation “wherein the fourth three-dimensional data indicates a
`
`difference between the second three-dimensional data of