DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/30/2025, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the new amendments to independent claim 1 and the new grounds of rejection presented 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 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.
Claims 1, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teague (US 20110198136 A1) in view of Cho 2 (US 20210041866 A1) and Qi (US 10423159 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Teague discloses a driving control apparatus for a moving object configured to be fixed to a predetermined location on the moving object, the driving control apparatus comprising (Paragraph 0033-0041, 0052);
a wire having one end accommodated inside the driving control apparatus and another end extending to an outside of the driving control apparatus (Abstract, Paragraph 0033, 0036);
the wire having a tension in accordance with a movement of the user (Abstract, Paragraph 0033, 0036);
and being wound or unwound in a form of a straight line (Abstract, Paragraph 0033, 0036-0039, Figs. 2, 3);
a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory including a program, wherein when the program stored in the memory is executed, the processor is configured to (Paragraph 0043);
generate a control signal for a driving control of the moving object, wherein the processor is configured to: generate the control signal for controlling the moving object so that the moving object is driven (Paragraphs 0009);
while keeping a predetermined separation distance range from the user based on an unwinding length and an unwinding angle of the wire (Abstract, Paragraphs 0038-0039);
and transfer the generated control signal to a driving device of the moving object (Paragraphs 0031-0032);
and a rotation sensor configured to sense a rotation direction of the driving control apparatus (Paragraphs 0039, 0061);
wherein the processor is configured to determine any one of a plurality of driving modes based on the rotation direction sensed by the rotation sensor (Paragraphs 0039, 0061, 0083).
Teague does not specifically state and fixed to a predetermined location of a user.
However Cho 2 teaches and fixed to a predetermined location of a user (Paragraph 0137, Figs. 27A-27G).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Teague with the wire fixed to a location on the user of Cho 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the accompanying device can be fixed to a location on the user in order to provide convenience. The user does not have to hold a handle in his hands so his/her hands can be used to perform other tasks. One would have been motivated to combine Teague with Cho 2 as this provides the user with hands free convenience. As stated in Cho 2, “the present disclosure may be implemented in various applications such as shopping carts, strollers, golf carts, travel luggage, toy cars, and jogging guiders” (Paragraph 0137).
Teague does not specifically state and determine any one of one or more predefined driving modes before driving of the moving object; wherein in each of the one or more predefined driving modes, a location relationship between the moving object and the user is defined before driving of the moving object; wherein the one or more predefined driving modes are configured to include at least one of: a front driving mode in which the moving object is driven in front of the user; a rear driving mode in which the moving object is driven in a rear of the user; a right horizontal driving mode in which the moving object is driven side by side on a right side of the user; and a left horizontal driving mode in which the moving object is driven side by side on a left side of the user.
However, Qi teaches and determine any one of one or more predefined driving modes before driving of the moving object (Col. 3 Line 38 – Col. 5 Line 22);
wherein in each of the one or more predefined driving modes, a location relationship between the moving object and the user is defined before driving of the moving object (Col. 3 Line 38 – Col. 5 Line 22);
wherein the one or more predefined driving modes are configured to include at least one of: a front driving mode in which the moving object is driven in front of the user; a rear driving mode in which the moving object is driven in a rear of the user; a right horizontal driving mode in which the moving object is driven side by side on a right side of the user; and a left horizontal driving mode in which the moving object is driven side by side on a left side of the user (Col. 3 Line 38 – Col. 5 Line 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Teague with determining predefined driving modes before driving of the moving object of Qi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the moving object can accompany a user, but might encounter obstacles when traveling. In order to continue following the user and avoid colliding with obstacles, the moving object can transition between right, left, and rear following positions. One would have been motivated to combine Teague with Qi as this improves maneuverability of the moving object. As stated in Qi, “The smart luggage system 100 is capable of maneuvering across any number of travel paths and avoiding any number of obstacles. The smart luggage system 100 is also capable of transitioning between a right side follow position and a rear follow position. The smart luggage system 100 is also capable of transitioning between a left side follow position and a rear follow position. The smart luggage system 100 is also capable of transitioning from a right side follow position, to a rear follow position, and then to a left side follow position” (Col. 5 Line 11 – Col. 5 Line 22).
Regarding claim 5, Teague discloses the processor is configured to generate the control signal for controlling the moving object so that the moving object is driven (Paragraphs 0009);
while keeping the location relationship defined in a determined driving mode and a separation distance range (Abstract, Paragraphs 0038-0039, 0083).
Regarding claim 10, Teague discloses the control signal includes at least one of a speed control signal of the moving object (Paragraphs 0009);
and a steering control signal of the moving object (Paragraphs 0009).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teague, Cho 2, and Qi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiramatsu (US 20180246525 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Teague discloses the processor is configured to (Paragraph 0043);
define a reference location of the user in accordance with the determined driving mode (Paragraphs 0079-0083);
and generate the control signal (Paragraphs 0009).
Teague does not specifically state derive location information of the user based on the reference location based on the unwinding length and the unwinding angle of the wire; being changed in accordance with the movement of the user; based on the derived location information of the user.
However, Cho 2 teaches derive location information of the user based on the reference location based on the unwinding length and the unwinding angle of the wire (Paragraphs 0006-0008, 0065, 0129, Fig. 2);
being changed in accordance with the movement of the user (Paragraphs 0006-0008, 0065, 0129, Fig. 2);
based on the derived location information of the user (Paragraphs 0006-0008, 0064-0065, 0129, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Teague with deriving location information of the user in accordance with the movement of the user, and controlling movement of the moving object based on the derived location information of Cho 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that accompanying devices such as luggages and shopping carts should follow the user. These items could be made to autonomously follow the user, providing convenience and allowing the user to be free from the device. One would have been motivated to combine Teague with Cho 2 as this improves user convenience. As stated in Cho 2, “the locomotion devices may include personal locomotion devices such as a robotic travel luggage, an intelligent shopping cart, etc. In some examples, a human following locomotion system may be controlled to follow a path of a human operator while avoiding obstacles if necessary. One of the methods used in a human following device may include obtaining information about the human operator's location relative to a locomotion device by real-time processing of human images obtained by one or more cameras installed on the device. In these examples, the human operator may be free from the device” (Paragraphs 0002-0003).
Teague does not specifically state derive location information of the user every predetermined time.
However, Hiramatsu, which is also in vehicle controls, teaches derive location information of the user every predetermined time unit (Paragraphs 0061, 0077-0079, 0095, 0102-0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Teague with deriving location information of the user every predetermined time unit of Hiramatsu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a robot needs to take multiple position data points of a human to determine if the human is stationary or moving. This allows the robot to determine whether to follow the human. One would have been motivated to combine Teague with Hiramatsu as this achieves gathering data to determine whether a robot should follow a human. As stated in Hiramatsu, “tracks the image of the human H in the subsequent photographed images, and identifies the behavior of the human H, namely, whether the human H is stationary or is moving” (Paragraph 0055).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669