DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the remarks filed 6/13/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In light of the amendments, the 35 USC § 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-5 of the remarks dating 6/13/2025, Applicant alleges that “Yoon et al. does not anticipate claims 1-6….Yoon et al. does not anticipate independent claim 1 and its associated dependent claims”. “…Yoon et al, does not anticipate claim 6.” The Examiner disagrees.
In response, MPEP § 2131 states that “to reject a claim as anticipated by a reference, the disclosure must teach every element required by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation. (emphasis added) See, e.g., MPEP § 2114, subsections II and IV.” To continue, MPEP § 2114 states that “the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. ‘[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.' Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)' (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)….” With that stated, the analogous art of Yoon et al. clearly anticipates a processing unit that, in a case where there is an obstacle on a node of the node, expands a size of the node so that the node is outside the occupied range of the obstacle, as rejected below. Furthermore, Applicant has amended the claims which has necessitated a new ground of reject. Since, independent claim 6 is similar to independent claim 1, the same above rationale applies to claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1. Yoon teaches a traveling system of an autonomous traveling vehicle that travels on a route constituted by a plurality of nodes and edges, wherein the autonomous traveling vehicle determines passage of nodes of the plurality of nodes by passing over the nodes (pg. 2802, col. 2 describes a scenario that reads on this element as such—“Here,
n
t
is the number of nodes that continuously have the same orientation and direction ( e.g., forward or reverse)
h
s
→
is the unit movement vector of the current node, and
n
t
1
is the number of straight edges of our trajectory module for the turning circle. These geometric quantities are shown at the bottom condition of Fig. 7. We can easily derive the above equation by examining the location of the current node in the trajectory module while respecting the definition of our trajectory module (Fig. 3), and the orientation of the current node as tangential to the circular arc…), and the traveling system comprises:
a processing unit that, in a case where there is an obstacle on a node of the node, expands a size of the node so that the node is outside the occupied range of the obstacle (We can then choose nodes along the identified path as intermediate goals for our KSA * algorithm. In particular, we choose the node from the identified path that is closest to expanded nodes of the prior operation of our KSA* algorithm. We choose the node (on the path found by the shape-aware A*) closest to expanded nodes among other possible candidates because there is a smaller probability that obstacles are encountered in regions close to nodes expanded by the KSA* algorithm”. Here the algorithm expands the node size to a region that will not encounter obstacle. In other words, the nodes have expanded around the outside of the object. Fig. 10 illustrate node expansion with forward movement); and
a control unit that controls traveling of the autonomous traveling vehicle on the basis of the node expanded in size by the processing unit (pg. 2807, col. 2, section V reads on this element as such—“MATLAB, and our autonomous vehicle is equipped with controllers and a path planner, which are integrated using Lab VIEW on an i7 computer with a 3.4 GHz CPU and 3 GB DRAM.” Fig. 10 illustrate a node expansion with forward movement. On pg. 2800, col. 2 teaches an expansion method that include a forward moving trajectory for the vehicle to travel on. While the description for fig. 2 state that autonomous vehicle has a path-following control module for the vehicle to follow. On pg. 2802, col. 1, para. 4 the Yoon reference uses “a straight line for the trajectory… when the movement vector of the current node
h
s
→
is identical to vector from the current node to the goal node
h
g
→
….”. Figs. 4(a), 4(b) and 5(c) illustrates the expansion of nodes around the outside of obstacles, with a trajectory that avoid interference with the obstacles—the legend to interpret the icons in the figures is taught in Table I on page 2799. Thus when taken together the at least cited section reads on the element).
Claim 2. Yoon teaches the traveling system of the autonomous traveling vehicle according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where there is an obstacle on the node, the processing unit changes the node to a straight line orthogonal to the edges on the route located in front of and behind the node with a center of the node as a starting point (Figs: 4(a)-(b), 9(a)-(b), 10 (b)-(c), 12(a)-(d) and 13(a)-(b) each teaches a route illustrates this element. pg. 2800, col. 2- pg. 2801, col. 1 teaches a scenario that reads on this limitation as such—“When the vehicle aims to tum left or right with its minimum turning radius
r
m
i
n
, we allow an orientation change (e.g., following a diagonal edge from the horizontal edge) in the same direction (forward/reverse) as the vehicle only after expanding
n
t
1
nodes with the same orientation and the same direction.”).
Claim 3. Yoon teaches the traveling system of the autonomous traveling vehicle according to 1 or 2, wherein, in a case where there is an obstacle on the node, the processing unit expands the node outside the occupied range of the obstacle (figs. 12 and 21-22 illustrates the expansion of the nodes and trajectory around the obstacle which reads on this limitation).
Claim 4. Yoon teaches the traveling system of the autonomous traveling vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the autonomous traveling vehicle includes a sensor that detects an obstacle, performs an operation for avoiding the obstacle in a case where the obstacle is detected by the sensor (pg. 2810, col. 1, para. 1 reads on this element as such—“Note that the laser scanners installed in the vehicle could detect obstacles in front of it and in a small lateral range (±135° from the longitudinal axis) of the vehicle. We chose its field of view because it is sufficient to avoid obstacles placed in front of the vehicle while driving.”), and transitions or expands a node outside the occupied range of the obstacle in a case where it is determined that passage of the node is not possible during the operation for avoiding the obstacle (pg. 2800, col. 1, para. 3 reads on this element as such—“for complex environments with several obstacles or narrow passages, our KSA * algorithm consisting of the aforementioned components may not find a path. In this case, we recursively find a path by identifying intermediate goals or nodes using either our shape-aware A*….”).
Claim 5. the traveling system of the autonomous traveling vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit determines passage of the node by the autonomous traveling vehicle passing over the expanded node (fig. 4-5, 10a-10c and 12 and illustrates traveling vehicle route passing over the expanded nodes).
Claim 6 is method performed by the system of claim 1; therefore, claim 6 is rejected under same rationale of claim 1.
In the event Applicant does not concede to the validity of the 102 rejection above, then the alternative obviousness 103 rejection is given below.
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.
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 obviousness or 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 of the 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 owned as 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are alternatively under rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Yamauchi et al., US 2022/0098012 hereinafter “Yamauchi”.
Claim 1. Yoon teaches a traveling system of an autonomous traveling vehicle that travels on a route constituted by a plurality of nodes and edges, wherein the autonomous traveling vehicle determines passage of nodes of the plurality of nodes by passing over the nodes (pg. 2802, col. 2 describes a scenario that reads on this element as such—“Here,
n
t
is the number of nodes that continuously have the same orientation and direction ( e.g., forward or reverse)
h
s
→
is the unit movement vector of the current node, and
n
t
1
is the number of straight edges of our trajectory module for the turning circle. These geometric quantities are shown at the bottom condition of Fig. 7. We can easily derive the above equation by examining the location of the current node in the trajectory module while respecting the definition of our trajectory module (Fig. 3), and the orientation of the current node as tangential to the circular arc…), and the traveling system comprises:
a control unit that controls traveling of the autonomous traveling vehicle on the basis of the node expanded in size by the processing unit (pg. 2807, col. 2, section V reads on this element as such—“MATLAB, and our autonomous vehicle is equipped with controllers and a path planner, which are integrated using Lab VIEW on an i7 computer with a 3.4 GHz CPU and 3 GB DRAM.” Fig. 10 illustrate a node expansion with forward movement. On pg. 2800, col. 2 teaches an expansion method that include a forward moving trajectory for the vehicle to travel on. While the description for fig. 2 state that autonomous vehicle has a path-following control module for the vehicle to follow. On pg. 2802, col. 1, para. 4 the Yoon reference uses “a straight line for the trajectory… when the movement vector of the current node
h
s
→
is identical to vector from the current node to the goal node
h
g
→
….”. Figs. 4(a), 4(b) and 5(c) illustrates the expansion of nodes around the outside of obstacles, with a trajectory that avoid interference with the obstacles—the legend to interpret the icons in the figures is taught in Table I on page 2799. Thus when taken together the at least cited section reads on the element).
Although Yoon teaches on the a processing unit that, in a case where there is an obstacle on a node of the node, expands a size of the node so that the node is outside the occupied range of the obstacle feature similar to the instant application as rejected above.
Yamauchi et al. teaches a processing unit that, in a case where there is an obstacle on a node of the node, expands a size of the node so that the node is outside the occupied range of the obstacle (see at least [0063]—“The size of the specific area As (the radius of a hemisphere) is preset and can be optionally changed. Note that the size of the obstacle that moves may be detected by image recognition from the video captured by the camera 55, and the size of the specific area As may be increased as the obstacle becomes larger. In addition, a shape of the specific area As is not limited to a substantially hemispherical shape centered on the obstacle and may be set to any shape including the obstacle” [0068]-[0069]—“when the sensor (55) detects movement of the obstacle (X), the control device 20 generates a new transport path CR after increasing the number of node points P(n) arranged around the obstacle”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Yamauchi with the invention of Yang because such a combination would provide a safety area that includes the obstacle inside the specific area (Yamauchi, [0010]).
Claim 2. Yoon in view of Yamauchi teaches the traveling system of the autonomous traveling vehicle according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where there is an obstacle on the node, the processing unit changes the node to a straight line orthogonal to the edges on the route located in front of and behind the node with a center of the node as a starting point (Figs: 4(a)-(b), 9(a)-(b), 10 (b)-(c), 12(a)-(d) and 13(a)-(b) each teaches a route illustrates this element. pg. 2800, col. 2- pg. 2801, col. 1 teaches a scenario that reads on this limitation as such—“When the vehicle aims to tum left or right with its minimum turning radius
r
m
i
n
, we allow an orientation change (e.g., following a diagonal edge from the horizontal edge) in the same direction (forward/reverse) as the vehicle only after expanding
n
t
1
nodes with the same orientation and the same direction.”).
Claim 3. Yoon in view of Yamauchi teaches the traveling system of the autonomous traveling vehicle according to 1 or 2, wherein, in a case where there is an obstacle on the node, the processing unit expands the node outside the occupied range of the obstacle (figs. 12 and 21-22 illustrates the expansion of the nodes and trajectory around the obstacle which reads on this limitation).
Claim 4. Yoon in view of Yamauchi teaches the traveling system of the autonomous traveling vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the autonomous traveling vehicle includes a sensor that detects an obstacle, performs an operation for avoiding the obstacle in a case where the obstacle is detected by the sensor (pg. 2810, col. 1, para. 1 reads on this element as such—“Note that the laser scanners installed in the vehicle could detect obstacles in front of it and in a small lateral range (±135° from the longitudinal axis) of the vehicle. We chose its field of view because it is sufficient to avoid obstacles placed in front of the vehicle while driving.”), and transitions or expands a node outside the occupied range of the obstacle in a case where it is determined that passage of the node is not possible during the operation for avoiding the obstacle (pg. 2800, col. 1, para. 3 reads on this element as such—“for complex environments with several obstacles or narrow passages, our KSA * algorithm consisting of the aforementioned components may not find a path. In this case, we recursively find a path by identifying intermediate goals or nodes using either our shape-aware A*….”).
Claim 5. Yoon in view of Yamauchi teaches the traveling system of the autonomous traveling vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit determines passage of the node by the autonomous traveling vehicle passing over the expanded node (fig. 4-5, 10a-10c and 12 and illustrates traveling vehicle route passing over the expanded nodes).
Claim 6 is method performed by the system of claim 1; therefore, claim 6 is rejected under same rationale of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 - 5.
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 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.
/A.D.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661