Response to Amendment
This action is in responsive to the amendment filed on 12/15/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-20 are pending.
Priority
Application 18268365 filed 06/20/2023 is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2022/002043, International Filing Date: 01/20/2022 claims foreign priority to 2021-023450, filed 02/17/2021.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: Traveling control unit in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis —Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system. Claim 12 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis —Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below), and text in parenthesis gives an example of a human performing a mental process; Also the underlined limitations are additional limitations. Claim 1 recites:
An unmanned vehicle management system comprising:
A processor configured to:
Set a protection area where entry of an unmanned vehicle traveling around a sprinkler vehicle is prohibited on the basis of a sprinkling state of a sprinkle spray provided in the sprinkler vehicle moving at a work site (i.e., a person sets a protection area or boundary within a mindscape image of an environment where vehicles are prohibited from entering based on whether there is water sprayed in that part of the environment or not);
wherein the protection area includes a sprinkling area indicating an area sprinkled by the sprinkle spray (i.e., this is just an additional detail added to the abstract idea identified above); and
the processor is configured to control a traveling device of the unmanned vehicle such that the unmanned vehicle does not enter the sprinkling area in the protection area (i.e., this reiterates the abstract idea identified above but with the additional mention of “a traveling device of the unmanned vehicle” which is considered as an additional limitation).
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a ‘Mental Process’ because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitations through the human mind. The limitation is recited at a high level and fails to preclude a person from mentally, with or without the help of pen and paper, set a protection area or boundary within a mindscape image of an environment where vehicles are prohibited from entering based on whether there is water sprayed in that part of the environment or not. When the limitation is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and thus will be considered as falling within the ‘mental process’ grouping of abstract ideas.
101 Analysis —Step 2A, Prong Il
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have identified that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application’.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”:
Processor;
a traveling device of the unmanned vehicle;
However, these additional limitations recite a generic processor which is a generic computer component. They also recite “a traveling device” which is broad and can be interpreted as the wheels of a vehicle, and wheels are also a well known conventional and generic component of a vehicle.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the noted abstract idea into a practical application because they merely recite generic well known conventional.
The examiner submits that the limitation includes adding the words ‘apply it’ or equivalent with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above -noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis —Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 includes additional elements but they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
In reference to dependent claim 3, the claim expands upon the abstract idea by specifying another mental step.
In reference to dependent claim 4, the claim expands upon the abstract idea by specifying another mental step.
In reference to dependent claim 5, the claim recites additional elements but does not integrate the claims into a practical application because it recites an insignificant extra solution activity of having sprinkle sprays be disposed at a rear portion of vehicle and sprinkles water as vehicle moves forward. This feature is well understood, routine and conventional in the art and thus does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See Orr, US P.G. Pub. 20110160919, Fig. 2, [0122].
In reference to dependent claim 6, the claim recites additional elements but does not integrate the claims into a practical application because it recites an extra solution activity of having sprinkle sprays having a start and stop spray function.
The claim also further expands upon the abstract idea by further specifying that the protection area grows larger in response to start and stop. This is seen as an additional mental step where the user mentally expands the protection area within their mindscape in response to starting and stopping of the water sprinkler.
In reference to dependent claim 7, the claim recites additional elements but does not integrate the claims into a practical application because it recites an extra solution activity of having sprinkle sprays be adjustable in the amount that it can spray. This feature is well understood, routine and conventional in the art and thus does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See Orr, US P.G. Pub. 20110160919, [0126].
The claim also further expands upon the abstract idea by further specifying that the protection area grows larger or smaller in response to sprinkling state. This is seen as an additional mental step where the user mentally expands the protection area within their mindscape in response to seeing a large sprinkling amount.
In reference to dependent claim 8, the claim recites additional elements but does not integrate the claims into a practical application because it recites an extra solution activity of having plurality of sprinkle sprays be installed on the vehicle. This feature is well understood, routine and conventional in the art and thus does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See Orr, US P.G. Pub. 20110160919, [0021].
The claim also further expands upon the abstract idea by further specifying that the protection area grows larger or smaller in response to sprinkling state. This is seen as an additional mental step where the user mentally expands the protection area within their mindscape in response to seeing a larger sprinkling amount due to larger number of sprinkle sprays installed on the vehicle.
In reference to dependent claim 9, the claim recites additional elements but does not integrate the claims into a practical application because it recites an extra solution activity of installing a plurality of sprinkle sprays in a specific width direction on the vehicle.
The claim also further expands upon the abstract idea by further specifying that the protection area grows larger or smaller in response to sprinkling state. This is seen as an additional mental step where the user mentally expands the protection area into a specific shape corresponding to the width arrangement of the sprinkle sprays.
In reference to dependent claim 10, the claim recites additional elements but does not integrate the claims into a practical application because the additional elements are a traveling control unit interpreted under 112f as merely a processor executing code. The additional elements further specify a generic function of the traveling control unit. Thus, the additional element describes a generic processor executing code to control an unmanned vehicle’s movement to not enter the protection area, where the executed code is a generic function commonly executed by the generic processor.
In reference to dependent claim 11, the claim recites additional elements but does not integrate the claims into a practical application because it recites an extra solution activity of having the unmanned vehicle be a haul vehicle.
In reference to independent claim 12, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 as cited above.
In reference to dependent claims 14-20, they are rejected under similar rationale as the claims cited above. Their corresponding claims can be found in the rejections below.
In reference to dependent claims 21-22, the claim recites additional mental steps because the user’s mind can dynamically adjust a size of an area of a mental map of a road.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites limitations that do not sufficiently narrow independent claim 12 to which it depends upon. The independent claim 12 already recites the limitations of claim 14.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-4, 10-12, 14-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. US 20180068561 A1, (hereinafter Hamada, cited by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Li et al. US 20210406564 A1, (hereinafter Li) in view of “Seeing through Rain and Fog”, (hereinafter USC, cited in the pto-892 as NPL).
As to independent claim 1, Hamada teaches:
An unmanned vehicle management system comprising:
A processor configured to:
set a protection area where entry of an unmanned vehicle traveling around a sprinkler vehicle is prohibited (See Fig. 5B, Figs. 8A-8C, with [0018] travel permission restricted zone is interpreted to be the claimed protection area. Then see [0025] which explains the first vehicle is a user driven vehicle that performs a water sprinkling function, while the second vehicle is an autonomous vehicle that is not allowed to drive near the first vehicle as further explained by [0024]; thus, this teaches the claimed unmanned vehicle traveling around a sprinkler vehicle is prohibited entry); and
the processor is configured to control a traveling device of the unmanned vehicle such that the unmanned vehicle does not enter the sprinkling area in the protection area (See [0137] – “…the travel permission restricted zone is introduced to avoid interference when the manned vehicle 70 and the dump truck 20 cross each other on the haul road 60.”, in other words the on-board terminal device mentioned above is what controls the unmanned vehicle i.e. dump truck 20 to avoid interference with manned vehicle 70 i.e. does not enter the protection area.)
Hamada does not teach: entry of an unmanned vehicle traveling around a sprinkler vehicle is prohibited on the basis of a sprinkling state of a sprinkle spray provided in the sprinkler vehicle moving at a work site.
Li teaches: entry of an unmanned vehicle traveling around a sprinkler vehicle is un-prohibited on the basis of a sprinkling state of a sprinkle spray provided in the sprinkler vehicle moving at a work site (See Fig. 3 with [0049-0052] an un-manned vehicle traveling behind a sprinkler vehicle is not prohibited in its entry to an area containing water mist obstacles based on identifying the obstacles as water mist i.e. sprinkling state of a sprinkler vehicle being active).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the travel restricted zones taught by Hamada to not include water mist area as a travel restricted zone as taught by Li. Motivation to do so would be for “Misreport of the obstacle such as water mist and exhaust gas often causes the main vehicle to brake suddenly, leading to an increase in the probability of the accident such as a rear-end collision, which is not conducive to safe driving.” (See Li [0176]).
Hamada as modified by Li teaches the embodiment where the unmanned vehicle should not be prohibited when traveling through water mist as cited above, but Hamada as modified by Li does not teach: entry of an unmanned vehicle traveling around a sprinkler vehicle is prohibited on the basis of a sprinkling state of a sprinkle spray provided in the sprinkler vehicle moving at a work site.
USC, as a teaching reference, teaches entry of an unmanned vehicle traveling through water mist should be prohibited (See NPL first paragraph under bolded headings, “But in misty, foggy, or rainy conditions, self-driving cars become a deer in headlights, largely unaware of upcoming obstacles. Scattered light confuses the car’s system, thus blurring the distinction between real objects and reflections from the scattered light itself. Under these conditions, autonomous cars cannot recognize upcoming obstacles that would be easily identifiable to the human eye.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the travel restricted zones taught by Hamada to include water mist area as a travel restricted zone as taught by USC. Motivation to do so would be for “largely unaware of upcoming obstacles” (See USC first paragraph).
Hamada, Li, and USC, individually each do not teach: wherein the protection area setting unit sets the protection area so as to include a sprinkling area indicating an area sprinkled by the sprinkle spray.
Hamada modified by Li and USC further teaches: wherein the protection area setting unit sets the protection area so as to include a sprinkling area indicating an area sprinkled by the sprinkle spray (See Hamada who teaches setting a protection area as explained above in claim 1. See Li Fig. 3 with [0049-0052] which says that the sprinkling area sprinkled by a spray is identified as an obstacle. And see USC who says that water mist as an obstacle should be avoided by self-driving cars).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the travel restricted zones taught by Hamada to include travel restricted zones that are sprayed by water as taught by both Li and USC. Motivation to do so would be for “largely unaware of upcoming obstacles” (See USC first paragraph).
As to dependent claim 3, Hamada as modified teaches all the limitations recited by claim 2 as cited above.
Hamada further teaches: the processor is configured to extend the protection area such that the unmanned vehicle does not enter the sprinkling area in the protection area (See [0094] – “The travel-permitted zone setting unit 311b then gives a travel permission for a zone that extends forward over at least a travel-permitted length from the forward end of the zone”, in other words the claimed “extends the protection area” is interpreted to mean extending forward travel permitted length as recited by the paragraph. In regards to the rest of the claim limitation, the travel restricted zone is interpreted to be the claimed sprinkling area when viewed in conjunction with [0025] which says the vehicle is a sprinkler vehicle because the travel restricted zone contains a sprinkling area).
As to dependent claim 4, Hamada as modified teaches all the limitations recited by claim 1 as cited above.
Hamada further teaches: the processor is configured to set the protection area so as to include the sprinkler vehicle (See [0094] – “The travel-permitted zone setting unit 311b then gives a travel permission for a zone that extends forward over at least a travel-permitted length from the forward end of the zone, in which the dump truck 20-1 exists”. See [0025] which mentions sprinkler truck instead of dump truck).
As to dependent claim 10, Hamada as modified teaches all the limitations recited by claim 1 as cited above.
Hamada further teach: a traveling control unit that controls a traveling device of the unmanned vehicle (112f interpretation – The specification appears to recite a processor executing code as the corresponding structure.
See [0035] – “On each dump truck 20, on-board terminal device (hereinafter referred to as “the dump-truck terminal device”) 26 is mounted to perform autonomous traveling in accordance with an instruction from the traffic control server 31”, in other words the on-board terminal device is interpreted to be the traveling control unit), wherein the traveling control unit controls the traveling device such that the unmanned vehicle does not enter the protection area (See [0137] – “…the travel permission restricted zone is introduced to avoid interference when the manned vehicle 70 and the dump truck 20 cross each other on the haul road 60.”, in other words the on-board terminal device mentioned above is what controls the unmanned vehicle i.e. dump truck 20 to avoid interference with manned vehicle 70 i.e. does not enter the protection area).
As to dependent claim 11, Hamada as modified teaches all the limitations recited by claim 1 as cited above.
Hamada further teach: wherein the unmanned vehicle is an unmanned haul vehicle (See [0025] mining dump truck. [0140] also lists alternative haul vehicles.).
As to independent claim 12, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 14, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 15, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 3 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 16, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 4 as cited above.
Claims 5-9, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. US 20180068561 A1, (hereinafter Hamada, cited by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Li et al. US 20210406564 A1, (hereinafter Li) in view of “Seeing through Rain and Fog”, (hereinafter USC, cited in the pto-892 as NPL) in view of Orr et al. US 20110160919 A1, (hereinafter Orr, cited by the Applicant in the IDS).
As to dependent claim 5, Hamada as modified teaches all the limitations recited by claim 1 as cited above.
Hamada as modified does not teach: wherein the sprinkle spray is disposed at a rear portion of the sprinkler vehicle, and sprinkles water behind the sprinkler vehicle when the sprinkler vehicle moves forward.
Orr teaches: wherein the sprinkle spray is disposed at a rear portion of the sprinkler vehicle, and sprinkles water behind the sprinkler vehicle when the sprinkler vehicle moves forward (See Fig. 2 with [0021] spray heads 202 are at rear of the sprinkler vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprinkler vehicle of Hamada to have the sprinkle spray be disposed at the rear of the sprinkler vehicle as taught by Orr. Motivation to do so would be for effective sprinkling coverage without obscuring the front of the vehicle if the sprinklers were disposed on the front of the vehicle instead.
As to dependent claim 6, Hamada as modified teaches all the limitations recited by claim 1 as cited above.
Hamada as modified by Li and USC further teach: the processor is configured to set the protection area such that the protection area when the sprinkling is being executed is larger than the protection area when the sprinkling is stopped (See Hamada for the setting of protection areas. See Li [0047-0052] which lists several scenarios including when only the sprinkling truck is identified as an obstacle, and when a scenario where both the sprinkling truck and the water mist is identified as a super large obstacle i.e. much larger area when sprinkling is active vs stopped. See USC for having water mist be included as a protection area).
Hamada as modified does not teach: wherein the sprinkling state includes execution of sprinkling and stop of sprinkling by the sprinkle spray.
Orr teaches: wherein the sprinkling state includes execution of sprinkling and stop of sprinkling by the sprinkle spray (See Fig. 2 with [0122] teaches a stop button for terminate fluid delivery. See Fig. 8 with [0124] for execute water sprinkling)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprinkler vehicle of Hamada to have the sprinkle spray be able to start and stop as taught by Orr. Motivation to do so would be for effective user control over the amount of water sprinkling.
As to dependent claim 7, Hamada as modified teaches all the limitations recited by claim 1 as cited above.
Hamada as modified by Li and USC further teaches: and the processor is further configured to set the protection area such that the protection area is larger or smaller based on sprinkling (See Li [0047-0052], either a small obstacle comprising just the sprinkler vehicle is detected or a large obstacle comprising the sprinkler vehicle and the water mist. See Hamada and USC and as explained above in regards to the combination of Hamada, Li, USC.).
Hamada as modified does not teach: wherein the sprinkling state includes a sprinkling amount from the sprinkle spray, and the processor is further configured to set the protection area such that the protection area when water is sprinkled with a first sprinkling amount is larger than the protection area when water is sprinkled with a second sprinkling amount smaller than the first sprinkling amount.
Orr further teaches: wherein the sprinkling state includes a sprinkling amount from the sprinkle spray, when water is sprinkled with a first sprinkling amount is larger, when water is sprinkled with a second sprinkling amount smaller than the first sprinkling amount (See [0126] – “…flow controller 510 may alternatively reduce the fluid delivery rate R.sub.Delivery by a predetermined proportion (e.g., 25%, 50%, 75%, etc.), by a predetermined amount, or in any other manner appropriate to treat the exclusion zone.”.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprinkler vehicle of Hamada to allow user to adjust sprinkling amount as taught by Orr. Motivation to do so would be for more user control over amount of water that is needed for sprinkling.
As to dependent claim 8, Hamada as modified teaches all the limitations recited by claim 1 as cited above.
Hamada as modified by Li and USC further teaches: and the processor is configured to set the protection area such that the protection area is larger or smaller based on sprinkling (See Li [0047-0052], either a small obstacle comprising just the sprinkler vehicle is detected or a large obstacle comprising the sprinkler vehicle and the water mist. See Hamada and USC and as explained above in regards to the combination of Hamada, Li, USC.).
Hamada as modified does not teach: wherein a plurality of the sprinkle sprays is provided, the sprinkling state includes a number of the sprinkle sprays that execute sprinkling, and the processor is configured to set the protection area such that the protection area when water is sprinkled from a first number of the sprinkle sprays is different from a protection area when water is sprinkled from a second number of the sprinkle sprays, the second number being smaller than the first number.
Orr teaches: wherein a plurality of the sprinkle sprays is provided, the sprinkling state includes a number of the sprinkle sprays that execute sprinkling, when water is sprinkled from a first number of the sprinkle sprays is different, when water is sprinkled from a second number of the sprinkle sprays, the second number being smaller than the first number (See [0021] which mentions one or more spray heads 202. In other words, two scenarios can occur where there is 2 spray heads in the first scenario, and 1 spray head in the second scenario),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprinkler vehicle of Hamada to have multiple sprinkler devices attached on the vehicle as taught by Orr. Motivation to do so would be for more user control over amount of water that is needed for sprinkling.
As to dependent claim 9, Hamada as modified teaches all the limitations recited by claim 1 as cited above.
Hamada as modified by Li and USC further teaches: and the processor is configured to set the protection area such that the protection area is larger or smaller based on sprinkling (See Li [0047-0052], either a small obstacle comprising just the sprinkler vehicle is detected or a large obstacle comprising the sprinkler vehicle and the water mist. See Hamada and USC and as explained above in regards to the combination of Hamada, Li, USC.).
Hamada as modified does not teach: wherein the sprinkle spray is installed at each of a plurality of positions in a vehicle width direction of the sprinkler vehicle, the sprinkling state includes an installation position of the sprinkle spray that executes sprinkling, and the processor is configured to set the protection area such that the protection area when the installation position is a central portion in the vehicle width direction is different from a protection area when the installation position is an end portion in the vehicle width direction.
Orr teaches: wherein the sprinkle spray is installed at each of a plurality of positions in a vehicle width direction of the sprinkler vehicle, the sprinkling state includes an installation position of the sprinkle spray that executes sprinkling, when the installation position is a central portion in the vehicle width direction is different, when the installation position is an end portion in the vehicle width direction (See [0030-0031]. [0031] specifically mentions narrow spray and also wide spray. Wide spray in other words suggests a spray head installed in an end portion of the vehicle in terms of width. Narrow spray suggests spray head installed near center in terms of width),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprinkler vehicle of Hamada to have multiple sprinkler devices attached on the vehicle as taught by Orr. Motivation to do so would be for more user control over amount and width of water that is needed for sprinkling.
As to dependent claim 17, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 6 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 18, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 7 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 19, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 8 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 20, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 9 as cited above.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. US 20180068561 A1, (hereinafter Hamada, cited by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Li et al. US 20210406564 A1, (hereinafter Li) in view of “Seeing through Rain and Fog”, (hereinafter USC, cited in the pto-892 as NPL) in view of Hashimoto et al. US 20160259334 A1, (hereinafter Hashimoto).
As to dependent claim 21, Hamada as modified teaches all the limitations recited by claim 1 as cited above.
Hamada as modified teaches the protection area where entry of an unmanned vehicle traveling around the sprinkler vehicle is prohibited, but Hamada as modified does not teach: wherein the processor is further configured to set a size of the protection area where entry of an unmanned vehicle traveling around the sprinkler vehicle is prohibited.
Hashimoto teaches: wherein the processor is further configured to set a size of the area (See [0080] – “In addition, the blind area setting unit 16 may set the size of the driver's blind area AL to be variable based on the lane width of the adjacent lane R2.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protection area taught by Hamada modified by Li and USC to have the teaching of being able to set the size of an area within a road environment of a traveling vehicle as taught by Hashimoto. Motivation to do so would be for being able to dynamically adjust the size of an area on a road based on road conditions (See Hashimoto [0004] which describes a method to avoid a second vehicle existing in the driver’s vehicle’s blindside upon mode switch. And then see [0080] the blind area is dynamically adjusted based on lane width of the traveled road. This is pertinent to Hamada because Hamada’s protection area also conforms to the size of a particular lane).
As to dependent claim 22, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 21 as cited above.
Response to Argument
112d rejection is given for claim 14 and is cited above necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 112f interpretation has been considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that the 112f interpretation is a rejection. However, the 112f interpretation is not a rejection, but is a notice on how specific claim limitations are being interpreted. The Applicant cites the processing circuit 43 as the corresponding structure for the generic placeholders identified by the Examiner. The Examiner had also previously cited this processing circuit 43 as the corresponding structure used for interpreting the claims. Thus, argument not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims have canceled the generic placeholders in claim 1 that were cited by the 112f interpretation. Thus, the 112f interpretation for those generic placeholders are herein removed and moot. However dependent claim 10 still recites a traveling control unit. Thus, the 112f interpretation is maintained for this generic placeholder.
Applicant’s argument pertaining to the 101 abstract idea rejection has been considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim limitations of the independent claims are not mental steps because “A user cannot control the travel of a vehicle with their mind or using pen or paper”. The argument is not persuasive because the claim is more directed towards the setting of a protection area where entry is prohibited. Setting of a protection area can be performed by the human mind. Thus, argument not persuasive. Applicant then argues that the claims have a practical application but does not explain what it is. Thus, argument not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument pertaining to the 103 rejections have been considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant amended the independent claims with now canceled claims 2 and 13.
Applicant’s first argument on page 9 of the remarks is attacking Hamada, Li, and USC references individually when the rejection relies upon their combination; see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s second argument is arguing that the combination of Hamada and Li is improper since the combination would contradict and be modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Examiner disagrees because the rejection is solely relying on Li’s disclosure of detecting the sprinkling state being active and in response perform vehicle control based on that. Hamada teaches that the truck can be a sprinkling truck, but does not explicitly teach that the sprinkling state of the sprinkling truck being active is what sets the protection area. Li is cited to resolve this deficiency. Applicant’s argument is attacking Li individually as a reference by citing other disclosures of Li that the Examiner does not rely upon for the rejection. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the dependent claims are allowable due to the deficiency of the rejections for the independent claims are unpersuasive due to Examiner’s arguments above. Applicant’s new dependent claims 21-22 are also found to be taught by Hashimoto necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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 should be directed to DAVID V LUU at telephone number (571)270-0703.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V LUU whose telephone number is (571)270-0703. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday from 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4057. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAVID V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights