DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
General Note
Applicant uses a different translation of Graciano than relied upon in Examiner’s rejection. Applicant, however, does not indicate the purpose of using a different translation that that relied upon for the rejection, for example if Applicant is requesting a human language translation as discussed in paragraphs 1. and 2. of the Office Action dated 1/26/2026 (hereafter typically referred to as the prior or previous Office Action).
Examiner again notes that any machine translation might be relied upon for support of a rejection. If Applicant believes that one or more machine translations relied upon are not of sufficient quality, for example two different machine translation indicating divergent material as Applicant may be indicating (unclear), the Applicant may request for a human language translation to be obtained.
See MPEP 2120(II) which reads “A request by the applicant for the examiner to obtain a human language translation should be granted if the applicant provides evidence (e.g., a translation inconsistent with the machine translation) showing the machine translation does not accurately represent the document’s contents”.
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to Applicant’s note on “a rejection of claims 6-9 and 16-19 that is no longer present”, the previous Office Rejected these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in paragraphs 11. – 14. Thus, this rejection was present. Instead, Examiner’s error was in not including all claims indicated as allowable without correction of this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that “Examiner cites the following portions of Graciano”. This statement is not technically correct, as Applicant relies upon a different translation than relied upon in the rejection. While Examiner will respond with respect to both translations to the best of their ability in the response below, Applicant is respectfully requested to at a minimum respond with respect to the translation document relied upon in the rejection. Again, if Applicant takes issue with this particular translation document, Applicant may request a human translation in accordance with MPEP 2120(II) as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments appear to be to recite a lengthy portion of a different translation of Graciano, with emphasis to certain portions, and to conclude with a few vague brief statements related thereto in reference to several claim limitations which are repeated twice. However, these brief statements do not make clear what Applicant actually considers as the differences, particularly as they appear to ignore large portions of their own recitation of Graciano. More specifically, Applicant's arguments fail to specifically point out how the indicated language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from Graciano or how the amendments avoid the teachings of Graciano. Relatedly, Applicant’s arguments do not clarify in any way, shape, or manner how Applicant interprets the meaning of the claims or what they consider the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof to be.
For example, Applicant on Page 15 discusses [0035] and [0036] of the provided translation of Graciano with respect to their interpretations thereof, however the significance of these summarizing statements with respect to the recited claim limitations is not self-evident. Clarifying and explicit explanation appears wholly omitted. While Examiner does not concede the accuracy of these paraphrased statements, Applicant’s recited claim limitations do not appear exclusive of “evaluating trajectories based on driving convenience criteria and removing trajectories that do not satisfy stability criteria” or “a feature of additionally evaluating trajectories based on regulatory compliance criteria and selecting a final trajectory”. It is clear that selection is occurring “based on … classification information” from Applicant’s claim limitations, and nothing indicated by Applicant shows how these paraphrased features would not be determining “state information”, “classification information”, or similar.
Applicant furthermore fails to discuss what in particular they even believe the limitations recited to mean. As has been discussed in prior Office Actions, the phrasing used by Applicant has, and appears to continue to be, especially broad (see e.g. 10. of the previous Office Action). For example:
The claims do not define the term “state information”. State information may clearly be “an amount of change in angular velocity” and would consequently be “based” thereon. Furthermore, the claim does not limit the state information to only being based thereon, the limitation being part of a “comprising” claim with no limiting statements (“only”, “exclusively”, etc.). Therefore, the state information may comprise any variety of information, with only some of it needing to be “based on an amount of change in angular velocity …”. Thus, later claims which refer only to “state information” do not do so with respect to only “state information … based on an amount of change”.
The claims do not define the term “classification information” including any clear distinction between “state information” and “classification information”. Information used to classify a dynamic object may readily and obviously be information regarding the dynamic state of that object. Examiner additionally notes that the present limitation of “determine state information …” appears to read effectively the same as prior Claim 1 limitation “determine classification information …” except for the use of the term “state information” in place of “classification information”.
The claims do not define what it means to be “based on whether the state information … is changed”. Furthermore, the limitation is part of a “comprising” claim. Consequently, the limitation is not exclusive (i.e., it does not recite a phrase such as based only on or similar) and the “whether” of the statement is not especially limiting. Thus, something that discloses “based on whether the state information … is changed” and “based on whether the state information … is changed” discloses the limitation, or the “whether” may simply mean that “state information” changing has a bearing on the classification information, etc.
Thus, Graciano continues to read on the claim as the limitations are especially broad. “an amount of change in angular velocity” is simply “angular acceleration” without the claim specifying more. Graciano discloses the determination of an angular acceleration, which is also state information, it describing a state of the vehicle, trajectory, etc. Furthermore, this is used to determine which trajectory is selected and is classification information. Finally, this particular classification information is dependent on the state information, and thus is based on whether it changes, particularly wherein what constitutes “is changed” is undefined. The rejection below presently reflects this only rather than the following alternatives as well.
Additionally, and alternatively, the state information is not limited to only that “based on an amount of change in angular velocity …”, but may be inclusive of any other items as the claim is a comprising claim. Therefore, a variety of other selection criterion may read on the state information and consequently the classification information leaving the relevance of the angular velocity (“amount of change in angular velocity”) relevant only to the state information.
Additionally, and alternatively, Graciano discloses updating trajectory options which would cause the selections to update based on the state information changing, which would change as the trajectory options change. See e.g. “The provision of the number of possible trajectories is preferably carried out before the method according to the invention, but can also be carried out and / or updated during the method” on Page 3. Relatedly, the claim does not have any particular timing requirements recited.
With respect to Claim 10, Applicant appears to be misunderstanding the rejection provided in the previous Office Action. Furthermore, the limitations were not ignored, but instead Applicant’s claims constructed especially broadly.
As noted per Applicant’s own disclosure, the “soft driving mode” had a particular meaning which for the first limitation indicated that it was already disclosed by the prior art with respect to Claim 1. Furthermore, with respect to the second limitation, Examiner made no note of a contingent limitation with respect to MPEP 2111.04(II), but instead to Applicant’s use of the phrase “comprising” and the absence of any exclusive language such as “consisting”, “only”, “exclusively” etc. (MPEP 2111.03 (I) – (II) relates). If something is disclosed as being performed irrespective of a precondition, or in other words always done, then it is disclosed being performed under all conditions including the claimed condition. The claim does not and did not recite performance of the function only under the recited condition. As another example, while Applicant may disclose operating in different “modes”, the claim presently does not require any transition between modes, including the “soft driving mode” (For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that “normal driving mode” would not appear to hold any inherently narrow meaning like “soft driving mode” due to its extremely broad base language components)
Furthermore, and alternatively, the claim now recites “based on” rather than “when” and would appear to be potentially even broader than before, as the nature of “based on” or “control the motor to move the robot in a soft driving mode” are not claimed with any particularity. The timing of “changed” is not even claimed.
Additionally, and alternatively, Graciano discloses updating trajectory options and it is well understood that an acceleration may change from positive to negative or negative to positive in a vehicle which performs routine vehicle behaviors such as braking and turning. See e.g. “The provision of the number of possible trajectories is preferably carried out before the method according to the invention, but can also be carried out and / or updated during the method” on Page 3. Relatedly, the claim does not have any particular timing requirements recited.
In summary, Applicant argument appears to rely on inserting exclusive meaning into the limitations of the claim not supported by the previous or present claim construction, and interpreting the claims much narrower than appropriate for the extremely broad claim construction and terms provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 10 – 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graciano (DE 102015115163 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Graciano teaches:
A movable robot comprising:
a sensor (See at least Page 6, “As radar, lidar, ultrasound, cameras in the visible and non-visible light spectrum, but also position detection sensors, communication (C2X, mobile, TMC) and wheel speed sensors, temperature sensors, acceleration sensors for detecting longitudinal, transverse or yaw angular acceleration and many more”);
a motor configured to drive the movable robot (See at least Page 8 “The trajectory selected in this way is selected by the selection decision maker 5 transferred to the actuators or to the translator unit for the translation of the trajectory in actuator commands and then implemented by the actuators”); and
at least one processor (See at least Page 5 and Page 6 “The single figure shows a schematic representation of a possible system architecture of the method according to the invention. The method runs in the example shown permanently in a motor vehicle. The motor vehicle includes a plurality of driver assistance systems, such as a cruise control, a lane departure warning, an adaptive lighting direction regulation, a pedestrian protection emergency brake assist and many more”) configured to:
obtain a driving path of the movable robot (See at least Page 7 “The driver maneuvers the vehicle manually and decides to activate the driver assistance functions Adaptive Cruise Control and Lane Keeping Assist. This requires a predetermined trajectory, based on which the motor vehicle makes the necessary adjustments of the steering angle and the deceleration or acceleration”, “The first step is the acquisition of vehicle and environmental parameters 1 , The position determination unit determines the position of the vehicle on a digital map” and later on Page 7 “These parameters are transmitted to the trajectory generator as raw data or as data processed by already upstream evaluation units (eg ABS control unit) 2 and the situation classifier 3 forwarded”),
obtain sensing data including angular velocity from the sensor (See again at least Page 6, “As radar, lidar, ultrasound, cameras in the visible and non-visible light spectrum, but also position detection sensors, communication (C2X, mobile, TMC) and wheel speed sensors, temperature sensors, acceleration sensors for detecting longitudinal, transverse or yaw angular acceleration and many more”)),
determine state information of each of a plurality of candidate motions of the movable robot moving along the driving path based on an amount of change in angular velocity of each of the plurality of candidate motions according to the sensing data (See at least Page 8 “The compliance with the driver's request is operationalized as a target by the selection criteria steering angle, acceleration and deceleration. As the next selection criterion, the ride comfort (limitation of steering angle, acceleration and deceleration to a predetermined amount) can follow. With priority 3 Subsequently, the remaining trajectories are assessed for compliance with the legal requirements. Many other criteria are conceivable, for. As the vehicle dynamics (yaw, roll and pitch angle), fuel consumption, cruising speed, etc.” and later on Page 8 “The second priority selection criterion, compliance with ride comfort, is next used to evaluate the remaining trajectories. Since it is already ensured that the remaining trajectories keep the speed and the lane, they can now be calculated on the basis of defined comfort criteria, eg. Minimum steering angle or minimum yaw angular acceleration” (emphasis added)),
determine classification information of each of the plurality of candidate motions based on whether the state information of each of the plurality of candidate motions is changed (See again above. The angular acceleration is determined which is state information based thereon. This is used as classification information (thus determined, given the nature thereof is unclaimed) for selection and is dependent on any changes it may undergo)
determine a final motion from the plurality of candidate motions based on the classification information for each of the plurality of candidate motions (See quoted portions immediately above and at least Page 8 “If more than one trajectory is left after this selection criterion, these are evaluated on the basis of the traffic regulations. Under the conditions mentioned, however, the optimal trajectory is already found after the second evaluation step”), and
control the motor to move the movable robot based on the final motion (See at least Page 8 “The trajectory selected in this way is selected by the selection decision maker 5 transferred to the actuators or to the translator unit for the translation of the trajectory in actuator commands and then implemented by the actuators”).
Regarding Claim 10, Graciano teaches:
The movable robot as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the motor to move the movable robot in a soft driving mode (According to Applicant’s specification “The soft driving mode may be a mode in which the driving path of the movable robot 100 is set based on the amount of change in the angular velocity” ([0326] of the published application, (US 20230356391 A1)). Claim 1 already recites the limitation “determine a final motion from the plurality of candidate motions based on the classification information”, wherein the “classification information” may be related to an amount of change in angular velocity of each of the plurality of candidate motions and is demonstrated as being taught by Graciano. Therefore, this limitation is already taught with respect to Claim 1 without further description or limitation being provided by Applicant further defining the term) based on the amount of change in angular velocity being changed from a positive number to a negative number or from the negative number to the positive number (The claim is constructed as a comprising rather than a consisting claim, and the claim limitation does not recite “only”. Furthermore, and relatedly, the claim does not provide that the soft driving mode is not how the movable robot is always operating or similar. Therefore, the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding Claims 11 and 20, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 and 10 with respect to application of prior art, except that they are directed to a method, rather than a robot having a processor configured to perform the method. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 1 and 10 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 5 and 12 – 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6 – 9 and 16 – 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Examiner has not found all of the limitations of dependent claims 2 and 12 alone or in a reasonable combination within the prior art discovered in Examiner’s search. In particular, the following limitation has not been found alone or in a reasonable combination within the prior art:
“determine the final motion from the plurality of candidate motions based on the driving score for each of the plurality of candidate motions and the classification information of each of the plurality of candidate motions” (Claim 2, which is considered representative of Claim 12)
More specifically, Examiner has not found within their search of the prior art or a combination thereof which discloses or otherwise teaches a final motion determined from two particular items: (1) a classification information of a motion which itself at least related to the changing of a state information of a candidate motion which itself is at least partially based on the amount of change in angular velocity for a candidate motion, and (2) a driving score for a candidate motion.
The closest prior art of record is Graciano provided above, as well as Censi et al. (US 20240028035 A1) which recites determining optimal trajectory and motion behavior using strategic guidelines and a motion planner, and incorporates angular rates/velocities and angular accelerations in considerations as well as classifications of candidate trajectories.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights