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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/283,223 filed on 9/21/2023.
Claims 1-35, 42 have been cancelled.
Claims 36-41, 43-56 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on
10/28/2025.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner apologizes for the unclear wording in the rationales setting forth the prior art rejections in the previous office action. The relevant paragraphs have been corrected. All prior art rejections were originally, and are currently, set forth under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 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. In the Instant Application, the term being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is “imaging device” in Claim 50.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If the Applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it 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 functions); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 38, 41, 51, 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 38 states “the learning accuracy is based on learned data and a current position of the moving body.” Claim 41 states “accuracy of the autonomous movement [is] based on the current position of the moving body . . . and learned data.” The Examiner cannot ascertain whether learning accuracy is obtained from the current position and learned data, accuracy of autonomous movement is obtained from the current position and learned data, or both. The Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that the accuracy of autonomous movement is obtained from the current position and learned data. These claims should be amended for clarity.
Claims 51 and 52 are at odds with each other. Claim 51 states “the learning accuracy is based on the simulation learning . . . in response to the moving body being switched from the autonomous movement mode to the manual operation mode.” Claim 52 states “the autonomous movement mode of the moving body is based on the learned data including the simulation learning.” In combination, these claims seem to disclose that the simulation learning is based on the autonomous movement of the moving body, but also that the autonomous movement of the moving body is based on the simulation learning. The Examiner is interpreting these claims to mean that the moving body conducts simulation learning, which is then used to control the autonomous movement of the moving body, not the other way around. These claims should be amended to clarify which step in the process is based on the other, or provide amplifying information as to when the process flows in one direction as opposed to the other.
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 of this title, 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 36, 40, 43-46, 49, 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0072758 A1) in view of Chung (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0176208 A1), in further view of Lei (U.S. Patent 10,713,509 B1).
In regard to Claim 36, Kim teaches a display system for performing an operation with respect to a moving body, the display system comprising (see Paragraph 147 teaching a robot controlling method wherein a user is displayed a control pad after a switching operation):
Operation reception circuitry configured to receive a switching operation to switch an operation mode between a manual operation mode and an autonomous movement mode, the manual operation mode being selected for moving the moving body by manual operation and the autonomous movement mode being selected for moving the moving body by autonomous movement (see Paragraph 147 teaching that the user can input the switching operation between a robot autonomous mode and a manual mode);
A switching request transmitter configured to transmit a switching request for switching the operation mode between the autonomous movement mode and the manual operation mode to the moving body, in response to receiving the switching operation (see Paragraph 49 teaching that the system includes a communication interface 110 which transmits and receives data between the robot 100 and a server 200, including control signals); and
Wherein the switching of the operation mode between the autonomous movement mode and the manual operation mode of the moving body is performed based on the transmitted switching request (see Paragraph 144 lines 6-9, Paragraphs 147, 148 teaching that a display device 400 may receive an input for switching a driving mode, and that a processor 180a controls the driving of the robot 100a according to a user’s selection).
Kim fails to teach wherein the operation is remotely controlled; and
Display control circuitry configured to display a location display image representing a moving route of the moving body, and notification information representing the accuracy of the autonomous movement according to a position on the moving route.
However, Chung teaches wherein the operation is remotely controlled (see Paragraph 9 lines 16-19 teaching a map device which can be controlled remotely); and
Display control circuitry configured to display a location display image representing a moving route of the moving body, and notification information representing the accuracy of the autonomous movement according to a position on the moving route (see Figure 7A, Paragraph 77, Paragraph 109 lines 1-5 teaching that the device displays a user’s route, and the position of the user, and notifies the user of route deviations).
Here, and in any applicable subsequent claims, the Examiner is interpreting a display which depicts whether a user’s position is situated along a route, as well as route deviation notifications, as satisfying “representing [the] accuracy of . . . movement.”
Kim and Chung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle operation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a display which depicts an image containing the vehicle’s route and position, as well as route adherence notifications, and wherein the vehicle can be remotely controlled as taught by Chung. Doing so could improve a navigation and control system by enabling a user to better visualize and remain aware of a vehicle’s adherence to a route, as well as enable to user to control the vehicle from a remote location.
Kim further fails to teach wherein the notification information includes a numerical value of a percentage.
However, Lei teaches wherein the notification information includes a numerical value of a percentage (see Claim 12 teaching a vehicle system that displays a calculated value as a percentage).
Kim and Lei are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a feature capable of displaying calculated values as percentages as taught by Lei. Doing so could improve a vehicle operator information display system by quantifying the calculated value for a user, making the feedback information easier to understand.
In regard to Claim 40, Kim further teaches wherein the movement is autonomous (see Paragraph 147 teaching that the robot has an autonomous movement mode).
Kim fails to teach first accuracy calculation circuitry configured to calculate the accuracy of the movement, based on location information and route information, the location information representing a current position of the moving body moving within the location and the route information representing the moving route of the moving body; wherein
The display control circuitry displays the accuracy of the movement calculated by the first accuracy calculation circuitry as the notification information, and changes the notification information according to the current position of the moving body.
However, Chung teaches first accuracy calculation circuitry configured to calculate the accuracy of the movement, based on location information and route information, the location information representing a current position of the moving body moving within the location and the route information representing the moving route of the moving body (see Figure 7A, Paragraph 77, Paragraph 109 lines 1-5 teaching a map device which displays a user’s route, and the position of the user, and notifies the user of route deviations); wherein
The display control circuitry displays the accuracy of the movement calculated by the first accuracy calculation circuitry as the notification information, and changes the notification information according to the current position of the moving body (see Figures 9A-B, Paragraph 122 teaching that if the device deviates from an assigned route, the display object depicting the device’s location is no longer overlaid on the displayed route, and a display effect of the display is changed to indicate the deviation).
Kim and Chung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle operation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a feature that changes the status of a feedback display based on the movement of a vehicle or body along a route as taught by Chung. Doing so could improve a navigation system by enabling a user to better visualize and remain aware of a vehicle’s adherence to a route.
In regard to Claim 43, Kim further teaches wherein the movement is autonomous (see Paragraph 147 teaching that the robot has an autonomous movement mode).
Kim fails to teach wherein the display control circuitry displays an image representing the accuracy of the movement as the notification information.
However, Chung teaches wherein the display control circuitry displays an image representing the accuracy of the movement as the notification information (see Figures 9A-B, Paragraph 122 teaching that the display includes a map, and if the device deviates from an assigned route on the map, the display object depicting the device’s location is no longer overlaid on the displayed route, and a display effect of the display is changed to indicate the deviation).
Kim and Chung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle operation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a feature that changes the status of a feedback image on a display based on the movement of a vehicle or body along a route as taught by Chung. Doing so could improve a navigation system by enabling a user to better visualize and remain aware of a vehicle’s adherence to a route.
In regard to Claim 44, Kim further teaches wherein the movement is autonomous (see Paragraph 147 teaching that the robot has an autonomous movement mode).
Kim fails to teach acquiring circuitry configured to acquire the location display image representing the moving route of the moving body in an image representing the location; and
Wherein the display control circuitry displays the image representing the accuracy of the movement on the acquired location display image as the notification information.
However, Chung teaches acquiring circuitry configured to acquire the location display image representing the moving route of the moving body in an image representing the location (see Figures 9A-B, Paragraphs 109, 122 teaching that the display includes a map, as well as a camera image of the device’s location); and
Wherein the display control circuitry displays the image representing the accuracy of the movement on the acquired location display image as the notification information (see Figures 9A-B, Paragraph 122 teaching that if the device deviates from an assigned route, the display object depicting the device’s location is no longer overlaid on the displayed route, and a display effect of the display is changed to indicate the deviation).
Here, and in any applicable subsequent claims, the Examiner is interpreting the “image” taught in this claim to either be a map displaying the route adherence accuracy, or an image of the vehicle’s surroundings used to contribute to the accuracy determination. The Examiner is not interpreting this claim to mean that the system acquires or creates images of the actual surroundings of the vehicle and then overlays the route information and position information over those images. This interpretation is in light of the Instant Drawings.
Kim and Chung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle operation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate an image which depicts a route and a device location as taught by Chung. Doing so could improve a navigation system by making it easier for users to visualize the route and position of the vehicle.
In regard to Claim 45, Kim further teaches a communication system comprising (see Paragraph 49 teaching that the system includes a communication interface 110):
A moving body (see Paragraph 147 teaching a mobile robot 100a), including:
A switching request receiver configured to receive the switching request transmitted from the display system (see Paragraph 49, Paragraph 144 lines 6-9, Paragraph 147 teaching that a display device 400 may receive an input for switching a driving mode, that a processor 180a controls the driving of the robot 100a according to a user’s selection, and that the system includes a communication interface 110 which transmits and receives data between the robot 100 and a server 200, including control signals);
Mode setting circuitry configured to set a desired one of the autonomous movement mode and the manual operation mode, based on the received switching request (see Paragraph 148 teaching that a processor 180a sets the driving of the robot 100a according to a user’s selection of either the autonomous or manual driving modes); and
Moving processing circuitry configured to perform a moving process of the moving body based on the set desired mode (see Paragraph 148 teaching that a processor 180a controls the driving of the robot 100a according to a user’s selection of either the autonomous or manual driving modes).
The rest of Claim 45 is substantially similar to Claim 36 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 36 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 46, Kim further teaches self-location estimation circuitry configured to estimate a current position of the autonomous moving body (see Abstract lines 1-4, Paragraph 147 teaching that the robot has a position detector for detecting a position of the autonomous robot); and
Self-location route information generation circuitry configured to generate route information representing the moving route of the moving body (see Paragraph 43 teaching that the robot can automatically set and travel on a route when a destination is set).
Kim fails to teach second accuracy calculation circuitry configured to calculate the accuracy of movement, based on location information representing the estimated current position and the generated route information; and
An accuracy transmitter to transmit the notification information representing the calculated accuracy of the movement to the display system;
Wherein the display control circuitry of the display system displays the notification information transmitted from the moving body.
However, Chung teaches second accuracy calculation circuitry configured to calculate the accuracy of movement, based on location information representing the estimated current position and the generated route information (see Figures 9A-B, Paragraph 122 teaching that the display includes a map and an image of the device, depicting the device’s location); and
An accuracy transmitter to transmit the notification information representing the calculated accuracy of the movement to the display system (see Figures 9A-B, Paragraph 122 teaching that if the device deviates from an assigned route on the map, the display object depicting the device’s location is no longer overlaid on the displayed route, and a display effect of the display is changed to indicate the deviation);
Wherein the display control circuitry of the display system displays the notification information transmitted from the moving body (see Figures 7A-B teaching that the display depicts the location information, route information, and camera information associated with the vehicle).
Kim and Chung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle operation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the display receives vehicle information such as route information and position information as taught by Chung. Doing so could improve a navigation system by enabling a user to better visualize and remain aware of a vehicle’s adherence to a route.
Claim 49 is substantially similar to Claim 36 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 36 above for analysis.
Claim 56 is substantially similar to Claim 40 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 40 above for analysis.
Claims 37, 39, 53, 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0072758 A1) in view of Chung (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0176208 A1), in further view of Lei (U.S. Patent 10,713,509 B1), in further view of Yamauchi (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0168097 A1).
In regard to Claim 37, Kim fails to teach wherein the autonomous movement is a learning-based autonomous movement.
However, Yamauchi teaches wherein the autonomous movement is a learning-based autonomous movement (see Paragraph 6 lines 6-23 teaching a robotic lawn mowing system wherein a mowing robot 10 has a controller that stores reference position data in a teaching mode in order to subsequently follow the reference position data while in an autonomous mode).
Kim and Yamauchi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robotic control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a learning protocol as taught by Yamauchi. Doing so could improve a mobile robot by enabling it to autonomously ascertain movement patterns or instructions. This would eliminate time and effort normally required by a user to correct navigational or operational errors made by the robot.
In regard to Claim 39, Kim fails to teach wherein the moving body is enabled to perform learning for the autonomous movement, in response to the moving body being switched from the autonomous movement mode to the manual operation mode.
However, Yamauchi teaches wherein the moving body is enabled to perform learning for the autonomous movement, in response to the moving body being switched from the autonomous movement mode to the manual operation mode (see Paragraph 6 lines 6-23, Paragraph 7 lines 8-10 teaching that the robotic mower 10 has two modes: a teaching mode and an autonomous mode, and that a controller is configured to initiate the teaching mode in response to detecting that a handle is attached to the robot body).
Kim and Yamauchi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robotic control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the system switches from an autonomous mode to a learning mode due to an input by the user as taught by Yamauchi. Doing so could improve a dual-mode robot by eliminating the need for a user to manually initiate one mode when disabling the other mode.
Claim 53 is substantially similar to Claim 37 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 37 above for analysis.
Claim 55 is substantially similar to Claim 39 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 39 above for analysis.
Claims 38, 41, 47, 48, 52, 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0072758 A1) in view of Chung (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0176208 A1), in further view of Lei (U.S. Patent 10,713,509 B1), in further view of Yamauchi (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0168097 A1), in further view of Song (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0227176 A1).
Claim 38 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite (see analysis above), and has been interpreted as being substantially similar to Claim 41. Please see the rejection of Claim 41 below for a prior art rejection analysis.
In regard to Claim 41, Kim fails to teach wherein the first accuracy calculation circuitry calculates the accuracy of the autonomous movement based on:
The current position of the moving body estimated by self-location estimation circuitry and the route information representing the moving route of the moving body generated by route information generation circuitry, or
The current position of the moving body estimated by the self-location estimation circuitry and learned data that is associated with the autonomous movement of the moving body.
Because the claim discloses disjunctive limitations, the second is addressed below.
Song teaches wherein the first accuracy calculation circuitry calculates the accuracy of the autonomous movement based on the current position of the moving body estimated by the self-location estimation circuitry (see Paragraph 31 lines 1-7 teaching a vehicle localization system that improve its accuracy of navigation by performing self-localization of its actual position).
Kim and Song are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein navigation accuracy can be increased based on the system’s ability to determine its own position as taught by Song. Doing so could improve navigation function by enabling the vehicle to follow a path more closely after determining its distance from or position along the path.
Yamauchi teaches wherein the first accuracy calculation circuitry calculates the accuracy of the autonomous movement based on learned data that is associated with the autonomous movement of the moving body (see Paragraph 6 lines 6-23 teaching a robotic lawn mowing system wherein a mowing robot 10 has a controller that stores reference position data in a teaching mode in order to subsequently follow the reference position data while in an autonomous mode).
Kim and Yamauchi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robotic control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a learning protocol as taught by Yamauchi. Doing so could improve a mobile robot by enabling it to autonomously ascertain movement patterns or instructions. This would eliminate time and effort normally required by a user to correct navigational or operational errors made by the robot.
In regard to Claim 47, Kim fails to teach learning circuitry configured to perform learning of the moving route associated with the autonomous movement in response to the manual operation mode being set by the mode setting circuitry.
However, Yamauchi teaches learning circuitry configured to perform learning of the moving route associated with the autonomous movement in response to the manual operation mode being set by the mode setting circuitry (see Paragraph 6 lines 6-23, Paragraph 7 lines 8-10 teaching that the robotic mower 10 has two modes: a teaching mode and an autonomous mode, that a controller is configured to initiate the teaching mode in response to detecting that a handle is attached to the robot body, and that the robot controller stores reference position data in a teaching mode in order to subsequently follow the reference position data while in an autonomous mode);
Kim and Yamauchi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robotic control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the system switches from an autonomous mode to a route-learning mode due to an input by the user as taught by Yamauchi. Doing so could improve a dual-mode robot by eliminating the need for a user to manually initiate a route-learning mode when disabling the other mode.
The rest of Claim 47 is substantially similar to Claim 41 (that the second accuracy calculator calculates the accuracy of the autonomous movement, based on learned data acquired by the learning of the learning circuitry). Please see the rejection of Claim 41 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 48, Kim fails to teach wherein the moving processing circuitry is configured to move the moving body by autonomous movement, based on the learned data acquired by the learning of the learning circuitry, in response to the autonomous movement mode being set by the mode setting circuitry.
However, Yamauchi teaches wherein the moving processing circuitry is configured to move the moving body by autonomous movement, based on the learned data acquired by the learning of the learning circuitry, in response to the autonomous movement mode being set by the mode setting circuitry (see Paragraph 6 lines 6-23, Paragraph 72 lines 1-6 teaching that after the robot lawnmower 10 has completed the teaching mode, it is ready to navigate the lawn 20 autonomously based on stored reference position data).
Kim and Yamauchi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robotic control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein after a mobile device has completed a learning phase, it can navigate autonomously based on the information gained from the learning phase while, in a subsequent autonomous phase, as taught by Yamauchi. Doing so could improve a mowing machine by eliminating the need for a user to manually operate the mowing machine after a learning phase is complete.
In regard to Claim 52, Kim fails to teach wherein the learned data includes simulation learning of the moving route associated with the autonomous movement, based on the manual operation, and
The autonomous movement mode of the moving body is based on the learned data including the simulation learning.
However, Yamauchi teaches wherein the learned data includes simulation learning of the moving route associated with the autonomous movement, based on the manual operation (see Abstract, Paragraph 36 lines 11-17 teaching that the system conducts a determination between two perimeters in order to determine if the system has learned a route in order to conduct autonomous movement), and
The autonomous movement mode of the moving body is based on the learned data including the simulation learning (see Paragraph 32 lines 1-2, Paragraph 36 lines 11-17 teaching that the autonomous movement is based on learned data obtained in a teaching phase).
Kim and Yamauchi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robotic control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein learned data is used for autonomous movement as taught by Yamauchi. Doing so could improve an autonomous movement system by ensuring that data used for autonomous operations is based on learned instructions, reducing unpredictability of the autonomous mode.
Kim further fails to teach wherein a captured image is acquired during the manual operation.
However, Chung teaches wherein a captured image is acquired during the manual operation (see Paragraph 122 teaching that the electronic device can capture objects with a live video even when a user causes the electronic device to deviate from a route).
Kim and Chung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robotic control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the electronic device can capture images of objects while in a manual operation mode as taught by Chung. Doing so could improve a manual operation mode by enabling the operator to perceive the environment around a mobile body or vehicle while a user manually controls it.
Claim 54 is substantially similar to Claim 38 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 38 above for analysis.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0072758 A1) in view of Chung (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0176208 A1), in further view of Lei (U.S. Patent 10,713,509 B1), in further view of Yamauchi (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0168097 A1), in further view of Song (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0227176 A1), in further view of Onofrio (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0249684 A1).
In regard to Claim 50, Kim fails to teach learning circuitry configured to acquire the learned data by performing simulation learning; wherein
The simulation learning is based on at least one of the captured images acquired during the manual operation mode, the captured images acquired during the autonomous movement mode, or the current position detected by the state detector.
However, Onofrio teaches learning circuitry configured to acquire the learned data by performing simulation learning (see Paragraph 22 lines 19-25 teaching an autonomous machine path perception system that can test its accuracy of machine learning via simulation); and
The simulation learning is based on at least one of the captured images acquired during the manual operation mode, the captured images acquired during the autonomous movement mode, or the current position detected by the state detector (see Paragraph 25, Paragraph 50 lines 9-14, Paragraph 66 lines 1-3, Paragraph 67 lines 1-2 teaching that the simulation learning is based on data obtained by sensors on the vehicle as it traverses its environment, including cameras).
Kim and Onofrio are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate machine learning using data obtained from cameras as the device moves through its environment as taught by Onofrio. Doing so could improve a mobile device by enabling it to learn about its environment as it traverses it. This could improve the safety, reliability, and capabilities of the mobile device.
Kim further fails to teach an imaging device to acquire captured images during the manual operation mode or the autonomous movement mode; and
Wherein the self-location estimation circuitry configured to detect the current position using a state detector.
However, Chung teaches an imaging device to acquire captured images during the manual operation mode or the autonomous movement mode (see Paragraph 122 teaching that the electronic device can capture objects with a live video even when a user causes the electronic device to deviate from a route); and
Wherein the self-location estimation circuitry configured to detect the current position using a state detector (see Abstract lines 4-8 teaching that the electronic device can obtain information about its current location).
Kim and Chung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robotic control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the electronic device can capture images of objects while in a manual operation mode, as well as ascertain its own position as taught by Chung. Doing so could improve a manual operation mode by enabling the operator to perceive the environment around a mobile body or vehicle while a user manually controls it, as well as determine where that environment is located on a map.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0072758 A1) in view of Chung (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0176208 A1), in further view of Lei (U.S. Patent 10,713,509 B1), in further view of Yamauchi (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0168097 A1), in further view of Song (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0227176 A1), in further view of Onofrio (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0249684 A1), in further view of Choi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0050194 A1).
In regard to Claim 51, Kim fails to teach wherein the learning accuracy is based on the simulation learning for the autonomous movement.
However, Onofrio teaches wherein the learning accuracy is based on the simulation learning for the autonomous movement (see Paragraph 22 lines 19-25, Paragraph 25, Paragraph 50 lines 9-14, Paragraph 66 lines 1-3, Paragraph 67 lines 1-2, teaching that the machine can test its accuracy of machine learning via simulation, and that the simulation learning is based on data obtained by sensors on the vehicle as it traverses its environment, including cameras).
Kim and Onofrio are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate machine learning using data obtained from cameras as the device moves through its environment as taught by Onofrio. Doing so could improve a mobile device by enabling it to learn about its environment as it traverses it. This could improve the safety, reliability, and capabilities of the mobile device.
Kim further fails to teach wherein the simulation learning is in response to the moving body being switched from the autonomous movement mode to the manual operation mode.
However, Choi teaches wherein the simulation learning is in response to the moving body being switched from the autonomous movement mode to the manual operation mode. (see Paragraph 9 teaching a vehicle control switching apparatus that conducts deep learning when a manual mode switch request is inputted during autonomous driving of an autonomous vehicle).
Kim and Choi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s invention to incorporate a feature that conducts learning after being switched from autonomous mode to manual mode as taught by Choi. Doing so could improve a dual mode vehicle by preserving computing power when in autonomous mode, and conducting learning when manual control is implemented. This could balance or preserve computing power while enabling the vehicle to conduct machine learning during certain phases of operation.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments and remarks with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claim 36 has been fully considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
All claim objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
All original 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn, and new rejections have been introduced in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been invoked regarding use of the term “imaging device” in newly added Claim 50.
Four new references have been introduced in light of the amended and newly introduced claims, included Claim 36.
The previously presented claims remain rejected for reasons similar to those used to reject Claim 36, or under the rationales provided in the previous office action.
Conclusion
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 PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights