CTNF 18/736,914 CTNF 98889 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Foreign Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Status Claims 1-8 are currently being examined. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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) are: acquisition unit in claims 1 and 3-7. There is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function in the specification; see 112(b) rejections below. 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 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 Claims 1-8 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. Independent claim 1 recites “an acquisition unit configured to acquire deactivation information” but there is no structure in the claim which identifies how/by what means (antennas, transmitters, receivers, sensors, etc.) this information is acquired. How is the signal (carrying the deactivation information) transmitted or received structurally? From where is this signal/deactivation information acquired from? There is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, making the scope of the limitation unclear and rendering the claim indefinite. Independent claim 1 recites “remote control is deactivated” and “deactivation information” but neither the claims nor the specification describe what is meant by “deactivated”. Under BRI, deactivation can encompass many functions, including at least: cessation of communication, switching from remote to manual control, stopping the vehicle, and/or shutdown of the vehicle. Under BRI, deactivation information could encompass an even wider range of data, including information regarding the functions listed above, and additionally including at least a position and/or a time/timing where remote control of another vehicle is deactivated. The wide range of functions and data encompassed by “deactivated” and “deactivation information” makes the scope of the limitations unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 2-6 are rejected as being indefinite due to their dependence upon a rejected base claim 1. Dependent claims 3-6 also recite “deactivated”, but neither the claims nor the specification describe what is meant by “deactivated”. As noted for claim 1, wide range of functions encompassed by “deactivated” makes the scope of the limitation unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. Independent claim 7 recites “an acquisition unit configured to acquire deactivation information” but there is no structure in the claim which identifies how/by what means (antennas, transmitters, receivers, sensors, etc.) this information is acquired. How is the signal (carrying the deactivation information) transmitted or received structurally? From where is this signal/deactivation information acquired from? There is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, making the scope of the limitation unclear and rendering the claim indefinite. Independent claim 7 recites “deactivate remote control” and “deactivation information” but neither the claims nor the specification describe what is meant by “deactivate”. Under BRI, deactivation can encompass many functions, including at least: cessation of communication, switching from remote to manual control, stopping the vehicle, and/or shutdown of the vehicle. Under BRI, deactivation information could encompass an even wider range of data, including information regarding the functions listed above, and additionally including at least a position and/or a time/timing where remote control of another vehicle is deactivated. The wide range of functions and data encompassed by “deactivated” and “deactivation information” makes the scope of the limitations unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. Independent claim 8 recites “detecting that remote control for a first moving object… is deactivated” but there is no structure in the claim which identifies how/by what means (antennas, transmitters, receivers, sensors, etc.) this information is detected. How is the signal (carrying the deactivation information) transmitted or received structurally? From where is this signal/deactivation information acquired from? There is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, making the scope of the limitation unclear and rendering the claim indefinite. Independent claim 8 recites “remote control is deactivated” and “deactivation information” but neither the claims nor the specification describe what is meant by “deactivated”. Under BRI, deactivation can encompass many functions, including at least: cessation of communication, switching from remote to manual control, stopping the vehicle, and/or shutdown of the vehicle. Under BRI, deactivation information could encompass an even wider range of data, including information regarding the functions listed above, and additionally including at least a position and/or a time/timing where remote control of another vehicle is deactivated. The wide range of functions and data encompassed by “deactivated” and “deactivation information” makes the scope of the limitations unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0356052) . As noted in the 112(b) rejections above, under BRI, deactivation can encompass many functions and deactivation information can encompass an even wider range of data, including information regarding the functions listed for deactivated, and additionally including at least a position and/or a time/timing where remote control of another vehicle is deactivated. To the extent the claims were clear, Examiner has interpreted deactivation information as equivalent to a position where remote control of another vehicle is deactivated. Regarding independent claim 1 , Kim discloses: A moving object movable by remote control [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 110 (vehicle), 120 (remote control device); Par. 0040], comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire deactivation information indicating that remote control for another moving object movable by remote control is deactivated, the another moving object being different from the moving object; [See at least Par. 0042, 0080-0084] and a deactivation execution unit configured to deactivate remote control for the moving object when the acquisition unit acquires the deactivation information. [See at least Par. 0065-0067] For examination purposes, the management device 130 manages the entry and exit of all vehicles within the site, approving or rejecting requests to move to the destination and approving or rejecting each request for remote control deactivation. The implied causality of the instant’s limitations (a vehicle only deactivates remote control when another vehicle deactivates remote control) fall within Kim’s disclosure; as all vehicles must obtain approval to deactivate remote control, for vehicles wishing to exit, a request will only be approved by the management device when the another vehicle at the exit has been approved and its remote control deactivated. Regarding claim 5 , Kim discloses: The moving object according to claim 1, wherein the deactivation execution unit deactivates the remote control for the moving object when the moving object arrives at a position where the remote control for the another moving object is deactivated after the acquisition unit acquired the deactivation information. [See at least Par. 0042, 0065-0067, 0080-0084] For examination purposes, the exit location of Kim has been construed as equivalent to a position where remote control for the another moving object is deactivated. Regarding independent claim 7 , Kim discloses: A remote control deactivation system, comprising: a first moving object configured to be movable by remote control; [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 110 (vehicle), 120 (remote control device); Par. 0040] a second moving object configured to be movable by remote control, the second moving object including a deactivation execution unit configured to deactivate remote control for the second moving object; [See at least Fig. 4, flowchart for entry and exit control of each vehicle at a construction site; Par. 0065-0067] an acquisition unit configured to acquire deactivation information indicating that remote control for the first moving object is deactivated; [See at least Par. 0042, 0080-0084] and a deactivation command unit configured to supply a command for deactivating the remote control for the second moving object to the deactivation execution unit when the acquisition unit acquires the deactivation information. [See at least Par. 0065-0067] For examination purposes, the management device 130 manages the entry and exit of all vehicles within the site, approving or rejecting requests to move to the destination and approving or rejecting each request for remote control deactivation. The implied causality of the instant’s limitations (a vehicle only deactivates remote control when another vehicle deactivates remote control) fall within Kim’s disclosure; as all vehicles must obtain approval to deactivate remote control, for vehicles wishing to exit, a request will only be approved by the management device when the another vehicle at the exit has been approved and its remote control deactivated. Regarding independent claim 8 , Kim discloses: A remote control deactivation method [See at least Fig. 4; Abstract, Par. 0002, 0016], comprising: detecting that remote control for a first moving object movable by remote control is deactivated; [See at least Par. 0040, 0042, 0080-0084] and deactivating remote control for a second moving object movable by remote control when detecting that the remote control for the first moving object is deactivated, the second moving object being different from the first moving object. [See at least Par. 0065-0067] For examination purposes, the management device 130 manages the entry and exit of all vehicles within the site, approving or rejecting requests to move to the destination and approving or rejecting each request for remote control deactivation. The implied causality of the instant’s limitations (a vehicle only deactivates remote control when another vehicle deactivates remote control) fall within Kim’s disclosure; as all vehicles must obtain approval to deactivate remote control, for vehicles wishing to exit, a request will only be approved by the management device when the another vehicle at the exit has been approved and its remote control deactivated . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 2- 4 and 6 are re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki m (US 2022/0356052) in view of Dulmage et al. (US 2019/0271991). Re garding claim 2 , while Kim discloses the remote control vehicle claim 1, Kim does not disclose additional details such as a location of operation, or functions after a predetermined time or distance. With respect to these limitations, Dulmage et al., directed to the same technology — remote control of vehicles — teaches: The moving object according to claim 1, wherein the moving object moves by remote control in a factory where the moving object is manufactured. [See at least Par. 0206] For examination purposes, the building or warehouse of Dulmage et al. has been construed as equivalent to the factory of the instant. Without additional structural details indicating differences between a building or warehouse versus a factory or manufacturing facility, as the application of the functions does not change regardless of the environment (as currently claimed), the broad recitation of location is encompassed by Dulmage et al. under BRI. 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 to incorporate the teachings of Dulmage et al. and combine the details of location and predetermined time/distance with the remote control vehicle of Kim. The details of location and predetermined time/distance of Dulmage et al. allows more precise control of the vehicle, enabling increased efficiency and effectiveness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the details of location and predetermined time/distance of Dulmage et al. for/with/into the remote control vehicle of Kim and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the remote control vehicle of Kim and the features of the details of location and predetermined time/distance of Dulmage et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Dulmage et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (remote control of vehicles), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 3 , Dulmage et al. teaches what Kim lacks: The moving object according to claim 1, wherein the deactivation execution unit deactivates the remote control for the moving object after a predetermined time period has elapsed since the acquisition unit acquired the deactivation information. [See at least Par. 0130] 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 to incorporate the teachings of Dulmage et al. as discussed above, see claim 2. Regarding claim 4 , Dulmage et al. teaches what Kim lacks: The moving object according to claim 1, wherein the deactivation execution unit deactivates the remote control for the moving object when the moving object has moved a predetermined distance after the acquisition unit acquired the deactivation information. [See at least Par. 0215] 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 to incorporate the teachings of Dulmage et al. as discussed above, see claim 2. Regarding claim 6 , Dulmage et al. teaches what Kim lacks: The moving object according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the deactivation information from the another moving object. [See at least Par. 0050, 0070] 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 to incorporate the teachings of Dulmage et al. as discussed above, see claim 2. Examiner's Note Prior Art : Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims. English Translations : If a prior art reference has been relied upon to map the claim limitations that is in a language other than English, Examiner has provided both the original reference and an English translation of the reference as attachments to the Office Action. Applicant is encouraged to refer to the provided English translation for cited pages and/or paragraphs in the mapping of prior art to claims . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 1000-2000 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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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. /EM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655 /JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 2 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 3 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 4 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 5 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 6 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 7 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 8 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 9 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 10 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 11 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 12 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 13 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 14 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 15 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/736,914 Page 16 Art Unit: 3655
Prosecution Insights