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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 10 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 9 are independent.
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.
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. Said placeholder(s) is/are: "…obtainer, determiner, generator, outputter…" in at least claim 9.
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.
A review of the specification to determine whether the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function are disclosed shows that the written description fails to link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function(s); there is no disclosure (or insufficient disclosure) of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function(s).
If Inventor(s) (or (pre-AlA) Applicant(s)) 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, Inventor(s) (or (pre-AlA) Applicant(s)) 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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Specifically, regarding claim 9, the use of the said non-structural generic placeholders (i.e., "…obtainer, determiner, generator, outputter…") coupled with the claimed corresponding functional language invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, when reviewed from the point of view of one skilled in the relevant art, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions. Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1376, 95 USPQ2d 1673, 1682 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In other words, there is no disclosure or there is insufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions. Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEINLA, Ahti (US-20220335819-A1, hereinafter simply referred to as Ahti).
Regarding independent claim(s) 1 and 9, Ahti teaches:
An information output method (e.g., method of Ahti) comprising: obtaining travel information relating to travel of a mobile object (e.g., robot of Ahti) which is capable of autonomously traveling and being subjected to at least one of remote operation or remote monitoring (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0010, 0017]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…The present traffic detection device may be particularly advantageous for assisting mobile robots navigating in an unstructured environment…For example, there may be obstacles blocking the field of view of the robot's sensors. In such cases a traffic detection device may advantageously provide an assistive function for the mobile robot, e.g., providing additional sensor data from a sensor with a different field of view…", "…the object of interest detected by the sensor may be at least one of a traffic participant, a traffic light and an obstacle. This may be advantageous for assisting the mobile robot since a traffic participant may interfere with the path the mobile robot may travel and/or obstacles may block the way. Detecting a traffic light and particularly detecting the status of a traffic light may provide valuable information for crossing a road. For example, it may provide information on restrictions for crossing the road or times when other traffic participants may need to stop at said traffic light…"); obtaining location information relating to a remoting-required location where at least one of the remote operation or the remote monitoring is required (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0053]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…The server may be configured to estimate a time at which the mobile robot will require an assistive function and provide the time estimate to the traffic detection device. That is, the server may estimate the time the mobile robot may need to navigate to the travel detection device, i.e. estimate navigational time of the mobile robot, and instruct the traffic control device of the time when a next assistive function may be needed. This time would then correspond or substantially correspond to the estimated time of arrival of the mobile robot to the location or operation area of the travel detection device (that may be in substantial vicinity of the placement of the travel detection device)…"); determining whether two or more mobile objects will be located in one or more remoting-required locations at a same timing (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0016]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…sensor data on the speed, distance and direction of travel may be advantageous as it may enable estimating a trajectory of an object. That is, it may be possible to predict a position of an object at a given time in the future. This may for example enable the robot to determine a time at which it may cross a road without interfering with other moving objects (or two or more mobile objects as claimed)…"), based on the travel information (e.g., speed, distance and direction of travel of Ahti) and the location information (e.g., position information of Ahti), the two or more mobile objects each being the mobile object (e.g., mobile robots of Ahti) (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0010, 0017]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…The present traffic detection device may be particularly advantageous for assisting mobile robots navigating in an unstructured environment…For example, there may be obstacles blocking the field of view of the robot's sensors. In such cases a traffic detection device may advantageously provide an assistive function for the mobile robot, e.g., providing additional sensor data from a sensor with a different field of view…", "…the object of interest detected by the sensor may be at least one of a traffic participant, a traffic light and an obstacle. This may be advantageous for assisting the mobile robot since a traffic participant may interfere with the path the mobile robot may travel and/or obstacles may block the way. Detecting a traffic light and particularly detecting the status of a traffic light may provide valuable information for crossing a road. For example, it may provide information on restrictions for crossing the road or times when other traffic participants may need to stop at said traffic light…"), the one or more remoting-required locations each being the remoting-required location (e.g., unstructured outdoor environment of Ahti); generating control information (e.g., sensor data (e.g., the speed, distance and direction of travel, traffic control) of Ahti) for controlling at least one mobile object, among the two or more mobile objects (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0016]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…sensor data on the speed, distance and direction of travel may be advantageous as it may enable estimating a trajectory of an object. That is, it may be possible to predict a position of an object at a given time in the future. This may for example enable the robot to determine a time at which it may cross a road without interfering with other moving objects (or two or more mobile objects as claimed)…"), to prevent the two or more mobile objects from being located in the one or more remoting-required locations at the same timing (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0016]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5; "…sensor data on the speed, distance and direction of travel may be advantageous as it may enable estimating a trajectory of an object. That is, it may be possible to predict a position of an object at a given time in the future. This may for example enable the robot to determine a time at which it may cross a road without interfering with other moving objects (or two or more mobile objects as claimed)…"), when the two or more mobile objects are determined to be located in the one or more remoting-required locations at the same timing (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0016]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…sensor data on the speed, distance and direction of travel may be advantageous as it may enable estimating a trajectory of an object. That is, it may be possible to predict a position of an object at a given time in the future. This may for example enable the robot to determine a time at which it may cross a road without interfering with other moving objects (or two or more mobile objects as claimed)…"); and outputting the control information (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0075, 0130]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…Levels 1-4 can correspond to the remote terminal partially controlling the robot, that is, monitoring the robot, stopping the robot or otherwise assisting the robot with the motion…", "…The traffic detection device 100 may send the sensor data to the mobile robot 200 using the communication unit 120, either directly or via a remote server 300. In this way the mobile robot 200 can assess the situation and safely cross the vehicle road…").
Ahti teaches the subject matter of the claimed inventive concept as expressed in the rejections above. However, the teachings are taught in separate embodiments.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ahti taught in separate embodiments for the desirable and advantageous purpose of providing external sensors that can communicate with traffic participants and provide data on objects, such as moving vehicles, in their field of view while optimizing, streamlining and facilitating mobile robot operations, particularly when crossing vehicle roads, as discussed in Ahti (See ¶ [0008]); thereby, achieving the predictable result of improving the overall efficiency and speed of the system with a reasonable expectation of success while enabling others skilled in the art to best utilize the invention along with various implementations and modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Ahti teaches:
wherein the two or more mobile objects (e.g., mobile robots of Ahti) comprise more than a predetermined number of mobile objects (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0010, 0017]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…The present traffic detection device may be particularly advantageous for assisting mobile robots navigating in an unstructured environment…For example, there may be obstacles blocking the field of view of the robot's sensors. In such cases a traffic detection device may advantageously provide an assistive function for the mobile robot, e.g., providing additional sensor data from a sensor with a different field of view…", "…the object of interest detected by the sensor may be at least one of a traffic participant, a traffic light and an obstacle. This may be advantageous for assisting the mobile robot since a traffic participant may interfere with the path the mobile robot may travel and/or obstacles may block the way. Detecting a traffic light and particularly detecting the status of a traffic light may provide valuable information for crossing a road. For example, it may provide information on restrictions for crossing the road or times when other traffic participants may need to stop at said traffic light…").
Regarding dependent claim 3, Ahti teaches:
wherein the predetermined number is a total number of workers (e.g., remote operators of Ahti) who perform at least one of the remote operation or the remote monitoring (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0064]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…The sensor data may for example assist the robot by providing access to an area not covered by the sensors of the mobile robot, e.g. due to obstacles or range. Thus, they may enable the mobile robot to access the current situation and particularly identify moving objects such as other traffic participants. The wireless internet connection may be required for connecting to the server which may provide additional functionality, for example advanced algorithms. The wireless internet connection may for example also be required for requesting help from an external operator…").
Regarding dependent claim 4, Ahti teaches:
wherein the travel information includes information indicating a travel route of the mobile object, information indicating a position of the mobile object, and information indicating a travel speed of the mobile object (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0016]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…sensor data on the speed, distance and direction of travel may be advantageous as it may enable estimating a trajectory of an object. That is, it may be possible to predict a position of an object at a given time in the future. This may for example enable the robot to determine a time at which it may cross a road without interfering with other moving objects…").
Regarding dependent claim 5, Ahti teaches:
wherein the location information includes at least one of information indicating a position of the remoting-required location, information indicating time at which the remoting-required location is present, or information indicating a condition for being the remoting-required location (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0053]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…The server may be configured to estimate a time at which the mobile robot will require an assistive function and provide the time estimate to the traffic detection device. That is, the server may estimate the time the mobile robot may need to navigate to the travel detection device, i.e. estimate navigational time of the mobile robot, and instruct the traffic control device of the time when a next assistive function may be needed. This time would then correspond or substantially correspond to the estimated time of arrival of the mobile robot to the location or operation area of the travel detection device (that may be in substantial vicinity of the placement of the travel detection device)…").
Regarding dependent claim 6, Ahti teaches:
estimating a timing at which the mobile object will be located in the remoting-required location, based on a distance from the mobile object to the remoting-required location and a travel speed of the mobile object (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0010, 0017]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…The present traffic detection device may be particularly advantageous for assisting mobile robots navigating in an unstructured environment…For example, there may be obstacles blocking the field of view of the robot's sensors. In such cases a traffic detection device may advantageously provide an assistive function for the mobile robot, e.g., providing additional sensor data from a sensor with a different field of view…", "…the object of interest detected by the sensor may be at least one of a traffic participant, a traffic light and an obstacle. This may be advantageous for assisting the mobile robot since a traffic participant may interfere with the path the mobile robot may travel and/or obstacles may block the way. Detecting a traffic light and particularly detecting the status of a traffic light may provide valuable information for crossing a road. For example, it may provide information on restrictions for crossing the road or times when other traffic participants may need to stop at said traffic light…"), and determining whether the two or more mobile objects will be located in the one or more remoting-required locations at the same timing, based on the timing estimated (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0016]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…sensor data on the speed, distance and direction of travel may be advantageous as it may enable estimating a trajectory of an object. That is, it may be possible to predict a position of an object at a given time in the future. This may for example enable the robot to determine a time at which it may cross a road without interfering with other moving objects…").
Regarding dependent claim 7, Ahti teaches:
including, as the at least one mobile object, at least one of the mobile object whose travel speed is changeable, the mobile object whose travel route is changeable, the mobile object that is stoppable, the mobile object whose departure time is changeable, or the mobile object that is able to move backward (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0016, 0075]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…sensor data on the speed, distance and direction of travel may be advantageous as it may enable estimating a trajectory of an object. That is, it may be possible to predict a position of an object at a given time in the future. This may for example enable the robot to determine a time at which it may cross a road without interfering with other moving objects…", "…Levels 1-4 can correspond to the remote terminal partially controlling the robot, that is, monitoring the robot, stopping the robot or otherwise assisting the robot with the motion…").
Regarding dependent claim 8, Ahti teaches:
incorporating, into the control information, at least one of information for changing a travel speed of the mobile object, information for changing a travel route of the mobile object, information for stopping the mobile object, information for changing a departure time of the mobile object, or information for causing the mobile object to move backward (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0016, 0075]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…sensor data on the speed, distance and direction of travel may be advantageous as it may enable estimating a trajectory of an object. That is, it may be possible to predict a position of an object at a given time in the future. This may for example enable the robot to determine a time at which it may cross a road without interfering with other moving objects…", "…Levels 1-4 can correspond to the remote terminal partially controlling the robot, that is, monitoring the robot, stopping the robot or otherwise assisting the robot with the motion…").
Regarding dependent claim 10, Ahti teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the information output method according to claim 1 (See at least Ahti, ¶ [0016, 0075]; FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 10; "…sensor data on the speed, distance and direction of travel may be advantageous as it may enable estimating a trajectory of an object. That is, it may be possible to predict a position of an object at a given time in the future. This may for example enable the robot to determine a time at which it may cross a road without interfering with other moving objects…", "…Levels 1-4 can correspond to the remote terminal partially controlling the robot, that is, monitoring the robot, stopping the robot or otherwise assisting the robot with the motion…").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See the Notice of References Cited (PTO–892)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDOWU O OSIFADE whose telephone number is (571)272-0864. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached on (571) 272 – 9523. 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.
/IDOWU O OSIFADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675