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 appears to recite reference Graciano, but does not do so with any indication of the particular translation used, which clearly differs from that cited, provided, and utilized by the Examiner. It is respectfully requested that Applicant clearly indicate the source used, and if not already provided, provide said reference.
Additionally, Examiner 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”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
First (1), the amendments to the independent claims do not appear to amount to a change in scope to the claims with respect to the application of prior art under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms involved, and are thus rejected under the same logic as presented in the previous Office Action dated 10/09/2025 (hereafter referred to as the previous Office Action or similar).
More specifically, while Applicant has amended the claim such that it recites “determine classification information of a plurality of candidate motions of the movable robot moving along the driving path based on an amount of change in angular velocity” instead of “determine an amount of change in angular velocity”, the claims do not ever provide any kind of limiting distinction between “classification information” and “an amount of change in angular velocity”. A review of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure was unable to find a special definition for the term “classification information”. The plain meaning of the term would simply be “information” relating in some manner to, having relevance to, etc. “classification”. For example, while [0098] of Applicant’s Specification filed 05/03/2023 recites examples of classification information, and other portions of the specification indicate it may be values, categories, or types, the specification does not limit the nature of the term let alone provide a clear and explicit definition of the term which would clearly limit the scope thereof. Additionally, there is no requirement within the claims that the “classification information” and the “change in angular velocity” be distinct and/or separate in any manner. The “classification information” may simply be the “change in angular velocity”.
Furthermore, there is no distinction between the later amendment from “determine a final motion … based on the amount of change in angular velocity” to “determine a final motion … based on the classification information” wherein the claim previously recites that the “classification information” is “based on [the] amount of change in angular velocity”. More specifically, the nature of determining based on the classification information is not claimed in any manner, and wherein the classification information is based on the change in angular velocity, it is therefore still based on said information.
Consequently, as demonstrated above, there does not appear to be a distinction with respect to the application of prior art such as Graciano between the previous and presently amended claims, which have already been shown as rejected.
Second (2), Applicant’s arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First and foremost, it is not entirely clear the argument being made by Applicant. Applicant appears to only indicate that Graciano narrows from a pool of candidate motions. This, however, appears entirely consistent with the limitations of the claims (“determine a final motion from the plurality of candidate motions”). Applicant also appears to indicate that this narrowing occurs based off of general categorizations or classifications, meeting the “classification information” limitation. Finally, Applicant recites one of the narrowing categorizations, classifications, criteria, etc. of “minimum yaw angle acceleration” which would clearly read on performing the above limitation “based on the classification information” which is “based on an amount of change in angular velocity”. Therefore, Applicant’s supporting evidence appears to refute Applicant’s statements rather than clarify the argument being made or the reasoning thereof.
Second, Applicant appears to be arguing limitations not found in the claims. Applicant argues “Graciano fails to disclose … calculating a travel path using a change amount of angular velocity”. However, the claim limitations are distinct from this argued feature. As noted in the previous Office Action, the limitations claim “obtain” rather than “calculate” and do not do so with respect to a “travel path”. Claim 1 recites “obtain a driving path” and later “determine a final motion” rather than what is argued. Furthermore, as has been demonstrated several times before Graciano discloses “the remaining trajectories … can now be calculated on the basis of defined comfort criteria, e.g. Minimum steering angle or minimum yaw angular acceleration” (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation “the classification information for each of the plurality of candidate motions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation previously recites “classification information of a plurality of candidate motions”. The recited limitation indicates the classification information is specifically for “each” whereas the first recitation of classification information is for a more nebulous grouping of the “plurality of candidate motions” as a group.
In the interest of compact prosecution, and based on maintain consistency with dependent claims (See Claims 2, 3, and 6 from which this amended limitation appears to have been partially pulled from), Claims 1 and 11 have been interpreted as instead reciting “classification information of each of a plurality of candidate motions” and “classification information of each of the plurality of candidate motions”.
Regarding Claims 2 – 10 and 12 – 20, the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 2 – 10 and 12 – 20 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
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”),
determine classification information 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 based on sensing data obtained from the sensor (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 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 based on 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 amount of change in angular velocity of each of the plurality of candidate motions”. Therefore, this limitation is already taught with respect to Claim 1 without further description or limitation being provided by Applicant further defining the term) when the amount of change in angular velocity is 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 when” but only “when”. Furthermore, 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 limitation0).
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 prior art or a combination thereof which discloses or otherwise teaches a final motion determined from the three particular components of (1) an amount of change in angular velocity for a candidate motion, (2) a classification information of a motion which itself is based on the changing of a state information of a candidate motion which itself is based on the amount of change in angular velocity for a candidate motion, and (3) 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
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