CTNF 18/439,814 CTNF 72168 DETAILED ACTION Status of the Application 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Status of the Claims This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on February 13, 2024. Claims 1 – 7 are pending and examined below. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. 06-13 AIA The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words . Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1 – 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1 – 7 appear to be a poor translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For instance, in lines 4 and 13 of claim 1, the verb phrase “wherein the remote control unit moves the moving object that has been finished a first work at a first place in a factory to a second place in the factory by the remote control” and phrases similarly used in claims 2 – 7 are considered ambiguous. (Emphasis added.) Correction is required. In lines 6 – 7 of claim 1, the phrase “wherein the second place is a place for performing a second work on the moving object ” is inconsistent with the phrase “the remote control unit moves the moving object that has not been started the second work to the second place ” in claim 3. (Emphasis added.) It’s unclear whether a second work is done to the moving object or the second place. Clarification is required. In line 7 of claims 1 and 6, and in line 9 of claim 7, the phrase “of the same type” is considered relative terminology and renders the boundaries of the claimed invention vague and/or indefinite. Clarification is required. It should be noted that the scope of these claims are ambiguous to the point where one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the intended scope of the invention. Clarification is required. Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as being indefinite, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-fti The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1 – 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0199530 A1 to Ohtsuka et al. (herein after “Ohtsuka et al. publication") . Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s). As to claims 1, 6 and 7 (as best understood based on the 112 rejection discussed herein above), the Ohtsuka et al. publication discloses an unmanned driving system (10)(see FIG. 1 and ¶63) , comprising: a moving object (11) configured to be movable by remote control (see ¶63 and ¶65 – ¶67, where “[the moving object] 11 “may be manually operated by an operator . . . [or] any robot capable of autonomous travel such as an automobile, a drone, a multicopter, or an unattended aerial vehicle”; see ¶68 for “a plurality of moving objects 11 cooperating to monitor the monitored area”) ; a remote control unit (14, 124) configured to perform remote control for the moving object (see FIG. 5, ¶128 and ¶130, where “[t]he manual-operation command generation unit 124 generates a manual operation command for moving the traveling robot 11 by a manual operation in accordance with an input operation of the operator”) , wherein the remote control unit moves the moving object that has been finished a first work at a first place in a factory to a second place in the factory by the remote control, wherein the moving object is produced in the factory, wherein the second place is a place for performing a second work on the moving object (see ¶112, where “[t]he task execution unit 93 controls the traveling robot 11 to execute a predetermined task in response to a request from the operator. The predetermined task is, for example, capturing images for inspection of equipment at the site. When the traveling robot 11 includes a movable arm, the predetermined task can include light work by the movable arm”) ; and an information acquisition unit (25, 81, 83) configured to acquire information indicating that a predetermined number or more of another moving objects of the same type as the moving object and having an abnormality arrive at the second place within a predetermined period (see ¶81, where “[the information acquisition unit] 25 serves as presentation means (presentation unit) for presenting information on the abnormality when it is determined that there is an abnormality around the traveling robot 11”; see also ¶102, where “[t]he state information acquisition unit 83, serving as state information acquisition means, acquires information on a state of the traveling robot 11 and information on a state of the surroundings from various sensors including the image sensor of the imaging device 22. The state information acquisition unit 83 acquires optical information (image data) as state information from the image sensor of the imaging device 22. The state information acquisition unit 83 acquires, as state information, distance data indicating a measured distance to an object (obstacle) present around the traveling robot 11, from an obstacle detection sensor. The state information acquisition unit 83 acquires, as state information, the direction in which the traveling robot 11 faces, from the acceleration and orientation sensor 48. The state information acquisition unit 83 acquires, as state information, a gas concentration from the gas sensor”) , wherein when the information acquisition unit acquires the information, the remote control unit moves the moving object that has not been started the second work to a third place in the factory, wherein the third place is different from both the first place and the second place (see ¶81, ¶102 and ¶112). As to claim 2 (as best understood based on the 112 rejection discussed herein above), the Ohtsuka et al. publication discloses the third place being a place where a third work to resolve abnormality in the moving object that has not been started the second work, and the remote control unit moves the moving object that has been finished the third work to the second place . (See ¶102 and ¶112.) As to claim 3 (as best understood based on the 112 rejection discussed herein above), the Ohtsuka et al. publication discloses when the information acquisition unit acquires information indicating that a cause of the abnormality has been resolved, the remote control unit moves the moving object that has not been started the second work to the second place . (See ¶81 and ¶102, where “[t]he determination unit 81 can determine whether or not there is an abnormality in the surroundings based on the state information acquired by the state information acquisition unit 83.”) As to claim 4 (as best understood based on the 112 rejection discussed herein above), the Ohtsuka et al. publication discloses when the moving object that has not been started the second work moves to the third place via the second place, the remote control unit notifies the second place not to perform the second work on the moving object that moves via the second place . (See ¶102 and ¶112.) Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2 nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123. In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow , 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe , 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda , 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard , 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck , 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby , 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. Electronic Communications Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. /RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/439,814 Page 2 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/439,814 Page 3 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/439,814 Page 4 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/439,814 Page 6 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/439,814 Page 7 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/439,814 Page 8 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/439,814 Page 9 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/439,814 Page 10 Art Unit: 3666
Prosecution Insights