DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 4/18/2024 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-10, 12-20, and 22-23 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 12-16 have been amended.
Claims 22-23 have been added.
Claims 11 and 21 have been cancelled.
Claims 9 and 19 have been withdrawn from consideration but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter has been captured in the independent claims.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-18, 20, and 22-23 will be examined below.
Claims 1 and 12 are independent.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” on 3/26/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 3/26/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claims 11 and 21 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the Abstract objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Abstract objection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the Drawing objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the Claim objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim objections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections of Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks “Douillard in view of Hillis fails to disclose each of the features of amended independent claim 1 such that the amended claim is allowable over the cited references” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further remarks “Douillard fails to identify an object "corresponding to a white cane object", the system also fails to "remove a portion of the generated vision data corresponding to the white cane object" and "alter, after removing the portion of the generated vision data corresponding to the white cane object, one or more operating modes of the motorized mobile system in response to the identification of the white cane object within the generated vision data" of the amended claim 1. Therefore, because Douillard fails to disclose these features, independent claim 1, as amended, is allowable over Douillard” and again the Office respectfully disagrees.
Finally, applicant remarks “Removal of the generated vision data corresponding to the white cane object would be counter to the operations of the amended claim such that Hillis also fails to disclose altering "after removing the portion of the generated vision data corresponding to the white cane object, one or more operating modes of the motorized mobile system in response to the identification of the white cane object within the generated vision data" of amended claim 1. Therefore, for at least these reasons, Hillis cannot remedy the deficiencies of Douillard such that the amended claim is allowable over the cited combination” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It remains the stance that it is the combination of the cited prior art and not a single prior art that renders the claimed subject matter obvious. Douillard discloses using cameras and lidars to measure dynamic and static objects, [Douillard, ¶ 0036-0045]; further Douillard discloses that dynamic objects can be removed from the data sets [Douillard, ¶ 0019]; and finally Douillard discloses that the remaining set of objects are used for vehicle control [Douillard, ¶ 0035], therefore Douillard discloses almost everything required for the claimed subject matter, except that the objects could be a white cane, rather static and dynamic objects. Hillis was introduced to teach that sensors can measure objects such as white canes [Hillis, ¶ 0058-0062, 0065, and 0072 with Figure 10]. Therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments and it remains the Office’s stance that it is the combination of the cited prior that renders the claimed subject matter obvious.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Douillard et al. (United States Patent Publication 20180364717) in view of Hillis et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0336502).
With respect to Claims 1-2: While Douillard discloses “A motorized mobile system comprising” [Douillard, ¶ 0035];
“a first sensor generating vision data proximate to the motorized mobile system” [Douillard, ¶ 0036-0045];
“and in a field of view of the first sensor” [Douillard, ¶ 0036-0045];
“and a processor to” [Douillard, ¶ 0077];
“receive the generated vision data from the first sensor” [Douillard, ¶ 0036-0045];
“identify an object within the generated vision data corresponding to a an object” [Douillard, ¶ 0032-0034];
“remove a portion of the generated vision data corresponding to the white cane object” [Douillard, ¶ 0019 and 0032-0035];
“and alter, after removing the portion of the generated vision data corresponding to the object” [Douillard, ¶ 0019 and 0032-0035];
“one or more operating modes of the motorized mobile system in response to the identification of the white cane object within the generated vision data” [Douillard, ¶ 0032-0035];
“The motorized mobile system of claim 1 further comprising: a plurality of sensors generating additional vision data proximate to the motorized mobile system” [Douillard, ¶ 0036-0045];
“the processor receiving the additional vision data and utilizing the additional vision data to identify the object” [Douillard, ¶ 0036-0045];
Douillard does not specifically state that the object is a white cane, rather various objects, static and dynamic.
Hillis, which is also a vehicle control system teaches “A motorized mobile system comprising” [Hillis, ¶ 0058-0062, 0065, and 0072 with Figure 10];
“a first sensor generating vision data proximate to the motorized mobile system” [Hillis, ¶ 0030];
“and in a field of view of the first sensor” [Hillis, ¶ 0030];
“and a processor to” [Hillis, ¶ 0054];
“receive the generated vision data from the first sensor” [Hillis, ¶ 0057-0062, 0065, and 0072 with Figure 10];
“identify an object within the generated vision data corresponding to a white cane object” [Hillis, ¶ 0057-0062, 0065, and 0072 with Figure 10];
“and alter one or more operating modes of the motorized mobile system in response to the identification of the white cane object within the generated vision data” [Hillis, ¶ 0057-0062, 0065, and 0072 with Figure 10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sensor fusion for object (static and dynamic) avoidance and vehicle control as Douillard discloses but to also include objects such as white walking canes as taught by Hillis with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Hillis into Douillard to create a more robust system that can even detect people with disabilities [Hillis, ¶ 0071-0072], thus increasing safety. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements gathering data for object avoidance for vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 3: Douillard discloses “The motorized mobile system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further to: translate the generated vision data into point cloud data corresponding to a frame of reference of the motorized mobile system” [Douillard, ¶ 0014, 0018, (Global Map), 0030, 0038 (Virtual Origin), 0045 (Voxel space) and ¶ 0062-0063 (Vehicle centric)].
With respect to Claim 4: Douillard discloses “The motorized mobile system of claim 3, wherein the processor is further to: utilize one of a weighted average technique, a complementary filtering technique, a Bayesian inference technique, or a Dempster-Shafer technique to translate the generated vision data into the point cloud data” [Douillard, ¶ 0038, 0045, 0058, and 0098].
With respect to Claims 5-6: While Douillard discloses “The motorized mobile system of claim 3, wherein the processor is further to: determine a subset of the generated vision data in which the object is present” [Douillard, ¶ 0020 and 0045];
“and reduce the generated vision data used to identify the object to the subset of the generated vision data” [Douillard, ¶ 0020 and 0045];
“The motorized mobile system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further to: down-sample the subset of the generated vision data to further reduce the generated vision data used to identify the object” [Douillard, ¶ 0020 and 0045 (filtering may include removing data below a threshold amount of data per voxel (e.g., a number of LIDAR data points associated with a voxel)].
Douillard does not specifically state that the object is a white cane, rather various objects, static and dynamic.
Hillis, which is also a vehicle control system teaches “identify an object within the generated vision data corresponding to a white cane object” [Hillis, ¶ 0057-0062, 0065, and 0072 with Figure 10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sensor fusion for object (static and dynamic) avoidance and vehicle control as Douillard discloses but to also include objects such as white walking canes as taught by Hillis with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Hillis into Douillard to create a more robust system that can even detect people with disabilities [Hillis, ¶ 0071-0072], thus increasing safety. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements gathering data for object avoidance for vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 7: While Douillard discloses “The motorized mobile system of claim 3, wherein the processor is further to: identify a cluster of points of the point cloud data that correspond to the object” [Douillard, ¶ 0017].
Douillard does not specifically state that the object is a white cane, rather various objects, static and dynamic.
Hillis, which is also a vehicle control system teaches “identify an object within the generated vision data corresponding to a white cane object” [Hillis, ¶ 0057-0062, 0065, and 0072 with Figure 10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sensor fusion for object (static and dynamic) avoidance and vehicle control as Douillard discloses but to also include objects such as white walking canes as taught by Hillis with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Hillis into Douillard to create a more robust system that can even detect people with disabilities [Hillis, ¶ 0071-0072], thus increasing safety. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements gathering data for object avoidance for vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 8: While Douillard discloses “The motorized mobile system of claim 7, wherein identifying the cluster of points comprises comparing the cluster of points at least one identification rule for identifying clusters with a geometry of a object within the point cloud data.” [Douillard, ¶ 0076, 0080, 0093, and 0105].
Douillard does not specifically state that the object is a white cane, rather various objects, static and dynamic.
Hillis, which is also a vehicle control system teaches “identify an object within the generated vision data corresponding to a white cane object” [Hillis, ¶ 0057-0062, 0065, and 0072 with Figure 10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sensor fusion for object (static and dynamic) avoidance and vehicle control as Douillard discloses but to also include objects such as white walking canes as taught by Hillis with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Hillis into Douillard to create a more robust system that can even detect people with disabilities [Hillis, ¶ 0071-0072], thus increasing safety. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements gathering data for object avoidance for vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 10: Douillard discloses “The motorized mobile system of claim 8, wherein the at least one identification rule comprises comparing the cluster of points to a curvature threshold value comprising a determined surface normal for each of the cluster of points” [Douillard, ¶ 146].
With respect to Claims 12-18 and 20: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 1-8 and 10. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 12-18 and 20 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 1-8 and 10. Therefore Claims 12-18 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Objections
Claims 22-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights