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 .
The Amendment, filed on 01/20/2026, has been received and made ofrecord. In response to the Non-Final Office Action, dated 10/21/2025, Claims 1, 7, 12-13 are amended, Claims 15-17 are newly added claims, Claims 1-17 are pending in current application.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/20/2026 have been fully considered.
IDS dated 02/05/2026 has been considered in as much as the drawings and/or English abstract and/or equivalent US publication of the foreign document and/or English translation of the foreign document, as provided by Applicant.
Rejections made under 35 USC § 112 have been withdrawn in view of claim amendments. However, the amended claimed element “specific parameter” in claims 1, 12-13 and 16 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), indefiniteness as the phrase “specific parameter” in claims 1, 12-13 and 16 is not clearly defined or linked with a particulars in in the specification. Furthermore, the new claim 17 cites “predetermined speed”, where the specification fails to defined “predetermined speed”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-17 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, 12-13 and 16 cites the phrase “specific parameter” which is not clearly defined or linked to particulars in the specification. Therefore, claims 1, 12, 13 and 16 are indefinite. Furthermore, the new claim 17 cites “predetermined speed”, where the specification fails to defined “predetermined speed”. Therefore, claims 17 is also indefinite.
Claim 15 cites “a first speed travel” and “a second speed travel”, where the specification fails to define these terms, and therefore the claimed term is ambiguous.
Claims 2-11 and 14-17 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12-13 and 16 cite the phrases “specific parameter” which is not clearly defined or linked to particulars in the specification, wherein the specification fails to discloses what is referred to claimed specific parameter. Therefore, claim does not satisfy the written description requirement.
The new claim 17 cites the phrase “predetermined speed”, where the specification fails to defined “predetermined speed”. Therefore, claim does not satisfy the written description requirement.
Claim 15 cites “a first speed travel” and “a second speed travel”. These limitations are a new matter. Applicant is welcomed to point out where in the specification the Examiner can find support for this limitation if Applicant believes otherwise. Therefore, claim 15 further do not satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 2-11 and 14-17 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim.
Claim Objections (having “Allowable Subject Matter”)
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), set forth in this Office action.
The following isa statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Gariepy et al. (US 2020/0398850 A1) teaches an autonomous mobile device (See Fig. 1, discloses an autonomous or automated vehicle 100), comprising:
a housing (a housing is obvious for the autonomous vehicle 100);
a sensor unit that includes at least a first sensor, a second sensor and a third sensor (See Para. [0066], discloses “vehicle's sensors such as inertial-measurement units, range-finding sensors and/or optical sensors, and other sensors such as rotary encoders”), and
wherein the first sensor is configured to detect an angular velocity of the autonomous mobile device (See Para. [0036], discloses “sensor(s) for measuring rotation of the drive wheels and/or shaft” and/or see Para. [0069], discloses “angular or rotational speed/velocity measurement),
the second sensor is in the housing of the autonomous mobile device, the second sensor is configured to detect a speed of a wheel of the autonomous mobile device (See Para. [0066], “sensor, such as rotary encoders for measuring a wheel speed of the at least one wheel), and
the third sensor is configured to detect a displacement amount, on a two- dimensional plane, of the autonomous mobile device (See Para. [0106], discloses “measuring the rotational displacement of the vehicle's wheels, and then determining a corresponding linear displacement of the vehicle”); and
a central processing unit (CPU) (See Fig. 1, “computer 124”) configured to:
acquire a plurality of parameters from the sensor unit, wherein the plurality of parameters includes the angular velocity of the autonomous mobile device, the speed of the wheel of the autonomous mobile device, and the displacement amount of the autonomous mobile device (See Para. [0038], “the computer 124 is in communication with the sensors 122 and obtain information from the sensors 122 with respect to rotational displacement and rotational velocity, acceleration, etc.) of the drive wheels 110”);
estimate a self-position of the autonomous mobile device based on a the selected specific parameter (See Para. [0066], “estimate position of the vehicle based on wheel speed measured by sensors”, and/or see Para. [0106], “determine position of the vehicle based on the information obtained from sensors”).
Nevertheless, Gariepy fails to teach, determine a traveling state of the autonomous mobile device;
select a specific parameter from the plurality of parameters based on the determined traveling state;
Another closest prior art, Lee et al. (US 2009/0076651) teaches, determine a traveling state of the autonomous mobile device (See at least Abstract, Para. [0009], [0028], “determine travel state of the robot”);
Nevertheless, the cited prior arts above fail to disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “select a specific parameter from the plurality of parameters based on the determined traveling state”, and in combination with other limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is considered novel and obvious and is therefore allowable.
Claim 1-11 and 14-17 depend upon either directly or indirectly independent claim 8; therefore, these claims are also allowable by virtue of dependencies.
Claim 12 is a method claim and having the same allowable subject matter of claim 1 as discussed above. Therefore, Claim 12 is allowable for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 13 is a computer-readable medium claim and having the same allowable subject matter of claim 1 as discussed above. Therefore, Claim 13 is allowable for the same reason as 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 B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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 at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657