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
Claims 1-15 are pending and examined below.
Effective Filing Date
The actual filing date for the instant application is 11 Jan 24. However, the instant application requests foreign priority to a foreign filed application JP2023-004930, filed 17 Jan 23. As such, the effective filing date of each of the instant application’s claims under examination may be as recent as the instant application’s actual filing date of 11 Jan 24, or potentially as early as the filing date of 17 Jan 23 (filing date of JP2023-004930), depending on whether there is appropriate specification support for each particular claim in the earlier-filed specification. In the case that a prior art rejection to one or more claims made in an Office action during prosecution of the instant application includes one or more prior art references that fall somewhere between 11 Jan 24 and 17 Jan 23 (an "intervening" reference), that is because the examiner did not see sufficient support for that/those particular claim/-s in the English translation of that earlier filed Japanese reference (which pre-dates that/those particular reference/-s). If that should occur, if Applicant can specifically identify appropriate specification support for each of these claims in the earlier filed Japanese application, then the Examiner may determine that one or more of these prior art rejections against one or more of these claims will need to be withdrawn.
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) is/are:
“an operation device comprising a movement operation unit configured to accept a moving operation for moving the mobile robot…”
“a control unit configured to switch…”
in claims 1-5.
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 § 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 1-15 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 1-15 recite “a change in a switching signal in response to the switching operation.” It is unclear to the Examiner what the nature of the signal is and in what manner the signal changes. Applicant’s specification appears to provide an example that the signal rises to ON when a button is pressed and falls to OFF when the button is no longer pressed (pg 13 lines 31-33). However, the specification also appears to discuss that is merely an example. It remains unclear what the nature of the signal is and what parameters of the signal change. Is it an electric signal? Is it the amplitude which rises and falls? Frequency? Something else? Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20230266762 A1 (“Oshima”).
As per Claims 1, 6, and 11, Oshima discloses a control system, control method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium for controlling a mobile robot capable of switching between an autonomous moving mode in which the mobile robot autonomously moves and a user operation mode in which the mobile robot moves based on a user operation, the control system comprising:
an operation device comprising a movement operation unit configured to accept a moving operation for moving the mobile robot and a switching operation unit configured to accept a switching operation for switching the modes between the autonomous moving mode and the user operation mode (¶ 79—“The user can instruct the autonomous movement device 100 on a travel direction and movement velocity by a direction in which the user tilts the joystick 321 and a tilt amount (tilt angle), respectively”); and
a control unit configured to switch, based on information indicating which one of the autonomous moving mode and the user operation mode the mobile robot is in and a change in a switching signal in response to the switching operation, whether or not to accept the moving operation by the movement operation unit (¶ 79—“a start button 3226 for an instruction to switch a travel mode among a manual operation mode, an autonomous target following mode”).
As per Claims 2, 7, and 12, Oshima further discloses wherein, when the mobile robot is in the autonomous moving mode, the control unit switches the mode to the user operation mode when falling of the switching signal in response to the switching operation has been detected (¶ 101—“When, in the autonomous target following mode, the user presses the start button 3226 again, the autonomous movement device 100 is switched to the manual operation mode”).
As per Claims 3, 8, and 13, Oshima further discloses wherein, when the mobile robot is in the autonomous moving mode, the control unit stops or decelerates the mobile robot when falling of the switching signal in response to the switching operation has been detected, and switches the mode to the user operation mode after a predetermined period of time has elapsed (¶ 101—“When, in the autonomous target following mode, the user presses the start button 3226 again, the autonomous movement device 100 is switched to the manual operation mode”). Examiner notes that when the button is pressed to switch from autonomous to manual mode, a predetermined period of time necessarily passes due to the time taken for the signal to travel from the button to the components performing the mode switch plus processing time while performing the switch.
As per Claims 4, 9, and 14, Oshima further discloses wherein, when the mobile robot is in the user operation mode, the control unit switches the mode to the autonomous moving mode when rising of the switching signal in response to the switching operation has been detected (¶ 101—“When, in the manual operation mode, the user stands in front of the autonomous movement device 100 and presses the start button 3226, the autonomous movement device 100 recognizes the user standing in front thereof as a following target and is switched to the autonomous target following mode”).
As per Claims 5, 10, and 15, Oshima further discloses wherein the operation device is a joystick device comprising a stick member and a button disposed in the stick member, the stick member being the movement operation unit and the button being the switching operation unit (¶ 79—“The user can instruct the autonomous movement device 100 on a travel direction and movement velocity by a direction in which the user tilts the joystick 321 and a tilt amount (tilt angle), respectively… a start button 3226 for an instruction to switch a travel mode among a manual operation mode, an autonomous target following mode”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BASIL T JOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 8:00 PM.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/Basil T. Jos/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658