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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 15, 18-21, 23-26, 28-30 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued: Zhu, McLeod and Kamiya fail to disclose or suggest the features of the amended independent claims, claims 15, 28.
Zhu does not teach, suggest, or hint how a free driving zone, an alternative driving zone, or a remote driving zone would correspond to the use of a golf cart. Although McLeod discloses various zones on a golf course, McLeod does not teach or suggest the zones recited in Applicant's claims 15 and 28.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In this office action, the amended independent claims are rejected under 35 USC § 103 over Zhu in view of McLeod. As explained in the office action, Zhu discloses driving requirements for autonomous vehicles for a free driving zone, an alternative driving zone, or a remote driving zone. Zhu discloses such autonomous vehicles may include a golf cart (paragraph [0018}). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since Zhu discloses technical requirements for autonomous vehicle driving modes, and explicitly discloses that the autonomous vehicle includes a golf cart.
McLeod teaches various zones for a golf course and driving mode requirements for the zones, in Fig. 10, paragraphs [0067], [0060], [0064], [0065].
For Applicant’s arguments that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed specific combination of zones: “the vehicle is a golf cart able to drive to a fairway near a green of a golf course; the fairway includes the free driving zone; and between the green and the fairway there is a buffer belt, of which a side adjacent to the fairway is the alternative driving zone, and a side adjacent to the green is the remote driving zone”, Examiner reasoned that matching between the golf course zones including the fairway, the buffer belt, the green with the driving zones including the free, alternative, remote driving zones is a matter of design choice of a golf course that is adapted to autonomous golf carts. That is, a combination of specific zones for a particular golf course and matching driving modes for the specific zones is a matter of design choice, which is taught by Zhu in view of McLeod.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28 , 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20120083960 A1) in view of McLeod et al. (US 20060052918 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu discloses:
A vehicle able to drive in a free driving zone where free driving is allowed and an alternative driving zone where alternative driving is allowed, the vehicle comprising {paragraph [0112] discloses a free driving zone: some zones may require that the driver take complete control of the vehicle. [0107] discloses an alternative driving zone: certain geographic areas may be designated as autonomous vehicle-only zones};
a first determiner to determine whether the vehicle is in the free driving zone, or in the alternative driving zone, or in a remote driving zone where remote driving is allowed based on position information regarding a position of the vehicle {[0108] discloses a remote driving zone: an autonomous vehicle may be controlled by a remote driver (that is, remote driving) in hostile areas (that is, zones) in order to reduce the risk of injury or death to the driver. [0025]: The vehicle includes a geographic position component. Examiner notes that the zones are determined according to the geographic position. The first determiner is implied since the vehicle’s position decides a zone that the vehicle is located};
a mode setter to set the vehicle to a free driving mode where a human driver is able to drive the vehicle freely if the first determiner determines that the vehicle is in the free driving zone, to set the vehicle to an alternative driving mode where the vehicle is able to be driven automatically instead of by the human driver if the first determiner determines that the vehicle is in the alternative driving zone and to set the vehicle to a remote driving mode in which the vehicle is able to be driven by remote control instead of by a human driver if the first determiner determines that the vehicle is in the remote driving zone {[0112], [0107], [0108] disclose the zones and the modes. [0112] discloses a mode setter: vehicles may also be subject to zoning rules… where the vehicle enters a pre-designated autonomous zone … some zones may require that the driver take complete control of the vehicle. Examiner notes that the control mode differs according to zones, which implies a mode setter according to the zones in which the vehicle is located}; and
a controller configured or programmed to control an operation of the vehicle in accordance with the driving mode set by the mode setter such that the vehicle is able to be freely driven by the human driver in the free driving mode, the vehicle is able to be driven automatically by the controller in the alternative driving mode, and the vehicle is able to be driven remotely in the remote driving mode; {[0112], [0107], [0108]. Examiner notes that since the vehicle is controlled according to the determined driving mode, a controller configured or programmed to control an operation of the vehicle in accordance with the driving mode set by the mode setter is implied};
wherein in the alternative driving mode, at least steering, speed setting, and acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle are performed automatically {[0107]. Autonomous driving means that at least steering, speed setting, and acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle are performed automatically};
the vehicle is a golf cart able to drive to a fairway near a green of a golf course {[0018]: the vehicle may be any type of vehicle including golf carts}.
Zhu does not disclose:
the fairway includes the free driving zone; and between the green and the fairway there is a buffer belt, of which a side adjacent to the fairway is the alternative driving zone, and a side adjacent to the green is the remote driving zone.
McLeod teaches various zones for a golf course and driving mode requirements for the zones, in Fig. 10, paragraph [0067]: depending upon the user's course and speed… restricted area, buffer zone, signal the controller to apply the vehicle brakes 73 and motor 67 braking in proportion to the vehicle's Speed and interrupts motor 67 operation; [0060]: assigns whether an area is allowable or restricted… fairway 139, rough 141, [0064]: cart path areas around tee boxes 143 and greens 145 may have lower speeds than the cart path 147 in-between. [0065]: As long as a user negotiates the course 61 keeping to the cart path 127 or fairway 139, automatic control will not be effected. If a user decides to enter an area that is defined as restricted, such as the putting green 129, automatic control will become apparent.
In relation to the above limitation, Zhu discloses the free driving zone, the alternative driving zone, the remote driving zone.
Examiner notes that the matching between the golf course zones including the fairway, the buffer belt, the green with the driving zones including the free, alternative, remote driving zones is a matter of design choice of a golf course that is adapted to autonomous golf carts. That is, a combination of specific zones for a particular golf course and matching driving modes for the specific zones is a matter of design choice, which is taught by Zhu in view of McLeod.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the golf course zone features of McLeod with the described invention of Zhu in order to facilitate control of autonomous golf carts considering driving requirements for each golf course zone.
Regarding claim 18, which depends from claim 15, Zhu does not disclose: further comprising: an input to input a signal of the driving mode of the vehicle; wherein the mode setter is operable to set the vehicle to the free driving mode even when the vehicle is in the alternative driving zone if a signal of the free driving mode is inputted by the input.
McLeod teaches in [0063] that the base station 17 effectively controls the operational status of each vehicle 21, that is, input of a signal of the driving mode of the vehicle. [0074] teaches activation of override, that is, input of override that allows free driving mode even when the vehicle is in the alternative driving zone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the driving mode input feature of McLeod with the described invention of Zhu in order to facilitate operator control of driving modes.
Regarding claim 19, which depends from claim 18, McLeod teaches: wherein the input is able to input a signal of the alternative driving mode as the signal of the driving mode of the vehicle {[0063]}; the alternative driving mode includes a partially alternative driving mode in which steering, speed setting, and acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle are performed automatically; and the mode setter is operable to set the vehicle to the partially alternative driving mode if the signal of the alternative driving mode is inputted by the input when the vehicle is in the alternative driving zone {[0061] teaches boundary and speed control of the vehicle effected by the base station, that is, steering, speed setting, and acceleration/ deceleration of the vehicle are performed automatically}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autonomous driving input feature of McLeod with the described invention of Zhu in order to facilitate transition of driving modes.
Regarding claim 20, which depends from claim 15, Zhu discloses:
wherein the alternative driving mode includes a fully alternative driving mode in which steering, speed setting, acceleration/deceleration, and starting/stopping of the vehicle are performed automatically {[0030]: functions of vehicle be fully autonomous}.
Regarding claim 25, which depends from claim 15, McLeod teaches: wherein the free driving zone includes a two-way traffic zone, and the alternative driving zone includes a one- way traffic zone {Fig. 10 illustrates a golf course layout, which may include one-way and two-way traffic zones}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the two-way and one-way traffic zone feature of McLeod with the described invention of Zhu in order to facilitate classifying zones.
Regarding claim 26, which depends from claim 15, McLeod teaches: wherein the alternative driving zone includes a predetermined path on which the vehicle is able to drive automatically {[0060] discloses predetermined restricted areas}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the restricted path feature of McLeod with the described invention of Zhu in order to facilitate classifying zones.
Regarding claim 28, Zhu discloses:
A mobile terminal communicatively connected to a vehicle {[0023] discloses a mobile terminal communicatively connected to a vehicle: the processor may be located remote from the vehicle and communicate with the vehicle wirelessly... some of the processes are executed by a remote processor, including taking the steps necessary to execute a single maneuver. Examiner notes that the remoter processor may be in a form of mobile terminal} able to drive in a free driving zone where free driving is allowed and an alternative driving zone where alternative driving is allowed, the mobile terminal comprising: a first determiner to determine whether the vehicle is in the free driving zone, in the alternative driving zone, or in a remote driving zone where remote driving is allowed based on position information regarding a position of the vehicle; and a mode setter to set the vehicle to a free driving mode where a human driver is able to drive the vehicle freely if the first determiner determines that the vehicle is in the free driving zone, to an alternative driving mode where the vehicle is able to be driven automatically instead of by the human driver if the first determiner determines that the vehicle is in the alternative driving zone, and to a remote driving mode in which the vehicle is able to be driven by remote control instead of by a human driver if the first determiner determines that the vehicle is in the remote driving zone; wherein in the alternative driving mode, at least steering, speed setting, and acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle are performed automatically {[0112], [0107], [0108], [0025]}; the vehicle is a golf cart able to drive to a fairway near a green of a golf course {[0018]}.
McLeod teaches: the fairway includes the free driving zone; and between the green and the fairway there is a buffer belt, of which a side adjacent to the fairway is the alternative driving zone, and a side adjacent to the green is the remote driving zone {Fig. 10, [0067], [0060], [0064], [0065]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the golf course zone features of McLeod with the described invention of Zhu in order to facilitate control of autonomous golf carts considering driving requirements for each golf course zone.
Regarding claim 29, which depends from claim 15, McLeod teaches: further comprising: a zone detector to detect zone information as the position information indicating whether the vehicle is in the free driving zone, in the alternative driving zone, or in the remote driving zone; wherein the first determiner is operable to determine whether the vehicle is in the free driving zone, in the alternative driving zone, or in the remote driving zone based on a detection result from the zone detector {[0009] teaches indicating and determining the zones based on the vehicle’s position}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the zone detector feature of McLeod with the described invention of Zhu in order to facilitate identifying the zones.
Similar reason applies to claim 30.
Claim(s) 21, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of McLeod and in further view of Kamiya (US 20090248231 A1), which was cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 21, which depends from claim 15, modified Zhu does not teach: further comprising: a second determiner to determine whether or not the vehicle is able to perform alternative driving normally; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to cancel the alternative driving mode if the second determiner determines that the vehicle is not able to perform alternative driving normally in the alternative driving mode.
Kamiya teaches that it was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control to cancel the alternative driving mode in paragraph [0069], which teaches to cancel autonomous driving in a situation where the vehicle was brought to an emergency stop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the alternative driving mode canceling feature of Kamiya with the described invention of modified Zhu in order to prevent dangerous driving situation.
Regarding claim 23, which depends from claim 15, modified Zhu does not teach: a third determiner to determine whether or not the vehicle is able to perform remote driving normally; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to cancel the remote driving mode if the third determiner determines that the vehicle is not able to perform remote driving normally in the remote driving mode.
Kamiya teaches emergency stop function when normal driving is not possible in [0069], [0040], which disclose generating emergency stop control, meaning canceling driving that may include remote driving.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the emergency stop feature of Kamiya with the described invention of modified Zhu in order to prevent dangerous driving situation.
Regarding claim 24, which depends from claim 15, Kamiya teaches:
further comprising: a fourth determiner to determine whether or not the vehicle is able to drive normally; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to set the vehicle to a driving-disabled mode in which the vehicle is able to be stopped if the fourth determiner determines that the vehicle is not able to drive normally {[0069], [0040]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the emergency stop feature of Kamiya with the described invention of modified Zhu in order to prevent dangerous driving situation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hsu et al. (US20200341489A1) discloses control for autonomous golf cart.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661