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 . Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-20 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 5/12/26.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) filed on 5/12/26, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretations are persuasive in view of amendments filed 5/12/26. 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretations are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 U.S.C. § 101 filed on 5/12/26, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 5/12/26. 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103. filed on 5/12/26, regarding 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 rejections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 5/12/26.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of further citations to the art of record below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the newly amended claim element “the kind of external force including a kind of external force that is generated by work performed on the vehicle” does not contain sufficient written description to define “work performed on the vehicle”. The Applicant’s Specification utilizes the term “work” 27 times throughout and each time only describes the second kind of external force generated in the “work with respect to the vehicle” and no reference to “work performed on the vehicle” as currently claimed. “Work” as utilized with reference to physics and forces is defined by the Britannica as the “measure of energy transfer that occurs when an object is moved over a distance by an external force at least part of which is applied in the direction of the displacement”1. None of the associated definitions of the Applicant’s specification disclose an explicit recitation of an external force being performed on the vehicle, only the external forces detected in response to the vehicle’s own movement, which based on the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “work” as the transfer of energy that occurs when an object is moved over a distance by an external force, the actual energy must be transferred from the external object to the vehicle rather than just be the vehicles own response to moving over/into an external object.
Therefore, the claims are rejected. Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3, 5-7, 10-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2021/0072761).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Lee discloses an autonomous cart system including a remote control device/method for a vehicle, the remote control device comprising: at least one processor configured to (¶34 and ¶130 – central control system performs control of the vehicle ECU corresponding to the recited processor, via wireless communication corresponding to the recited remote control):
acquire external force information on external force acting on a vehicle that is an autonomous vehicle (¶32 and ¶40-42 - the operating unit 130 is embedded therein with a sensor to sense at least one of the intensity and the direction of external force);
determine a kind of the external force by using the external force information, the kind of the external force including a kind of external force that is generated by work performed on the vehicle; generate a traveling control signal for remote control of the vehicle in accordance with the kind of the external force (¶80-90 – analysis of intensity and direction of the external force corresponding to the recited kind of external force by using the external force information which is utilized to generate control signals to the motor corresponding to the recited traveling control signal in accordance with the kind of external force where the external force applied through the impact with the obstacle is determined based on work performed on the vehicle as the vehicle moves through an environment given that the onboard movements is performed on the vehicle via remote control); and
transmit the traveling control signal to the vehicle to control an actuator of the vehicle to control operation of the vehicle in response to the traveling control signal (¶51 and ¶57-59 - the RPM and the torque of the motor 160 may be controlled by the electronic control unit 190 implicitly discloses a transmission unit configured to transmit the control signal from the controller to the vehicle).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Lee further discloses wherein the kind of the external force includes a kind of external force that needs a stop or a retreat of the vehicle and a kind of external force that needs neither the stop nor the retreat of the vehicle (¶64-68 – based on the intensity and direction of the external force associated with the stop signals corresponding to the recited kind of external force, the cart may require stopping and reversing corresponding to the recited the kind of external force, or a change in the movement direction corresponding to the recited kind of external force that needs neither the stop nor the retreat of the vehicle).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Lee further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to acquire information indicating reaction force of a drive motor or a steering motor of the vehicle as the external force information (¶37-41 - The wheel 120 may receive driving force from the motor 160 to drive where the rotational force required to drive the vehicle implicitly includes information indicating a reaction force of a drive motor as external force information).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Lee further discloses wherein the external force information includes at least one of (the “at least one of” element only requires one of the following to be present to disclose the invention as claimed)
a generation position of the external force acting on the vehicle (¶142 – external force information includes position and direction of the external force acting on the vehicle),
a direction of the external force (¶67 - the moving direction of the cart 100 in response to the obstacle stop signal and/or the impact stop signal may be determined depending on the information on the obstacle and/or the intensity and the direction of external force applied through the impact),
a magnitude of the external force (¶67 - the moving direction of the cart 100 in response to the obstacle stop signal and/or the impact stop signal may be determined depending on the information on the obstacle and/or the intensity and the direction of external force applied through the impact where the intensity corresponding to the recited magnitude of external force), and
a time-series change in the external force (¶47-52 – sensors generates the three-dimensional information in time-series including impact over time).
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, 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.
Claims 4, 8-9, 13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0072761), as applied to claims 1, 7, 10, and 16 above, in view of Kawai et al. (US 2021/0274987).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Lee further discloses varying reactions to different intensity/directional forces, but does not explicitly disclose riding on an object or a vertical force.
However, Kawai discloses an autonomous robot system including wherein the kind of the external force includes a kind of external force generated when the vehicle rides on an external object (¶45-46 – determining whether the contacted obstacle is able to be traversed over to continue working corresponding to the recited second kind of external force or whether the obstacle is too tall to be traversed when attempting to ride over corresponding to the recited first kind of external force).
The combination of the external force intensity/directional based autonomous navigation of Lee with the determination of whether or not a contacted obstacle may be traversed or avoided of Kawai fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the external force intensity/directional based autonomous navigation of Lee with the determination of whether or not a contacted obstacle may be traversed or avoided of Kawai in order to increase the reliability and capability of self-propelled navigation (Kawai - ¶8).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lee further discloses varying reactions to different intensity/directional forces, but does not explicitly disclose riding on an object or a vertical force.
However, Kawai further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate the traveling control signal such that the vehicle is caused to stop or retreat under a condition that the kind of the external force is vertically upward external force acting on wheels of the vehicle (¶58-60 – determining that an obstacle cannot be run over corresponding to the recited stop or retreat condition when the lower obstacle detector detects the obstacle but the higher collision sensor does not, corresponding to the recited external force is vertically upward which when in contact with the wheels would be acting on the wheels of the vehicle).
The combination of the external force intensity/directional based autonomous navigation of Lee with the determination of whether or not a contacted obstacle may be traversed or avoided of Kawai fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the external force intensity/directional based autonomous navigation of Lee with the determination of whether or not a contacted obstacle may be traversed or avoided of Kawai in order to increase the reliability and capability of self-propelled navigation (Kawai - ¶8).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Lee further discloses varying reactions to different intensity/directional forces in accordance with the time-series change in the external force (¶47-52 – sensors generates the three-dimensional information in time-series including impact over time), but does not explicitly disclose riding on an object or a vertical force.
However, Kawai further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform the determination by distinguishing between a kind of external force generated when the vehicle rides on an external object and a kind of external force generated by work performed on the vehicle (¶45-46 – determining whether the contacted obstacle is able to be traversed over to continue working corresponding to the recited second kind of external force or whether the obstacle is too tall to be traversed when attempting to ride over corresponding to the recited first kind of external force).
The combination of the external force intensity/directional based autonomous navigation of Lee with the determination of whether or not a contacted obstacle may be traversed or avoided of Kawai fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the external force intensity/directional based autonomous navigation of Lee with the determination of whether or not a contacted obstacle may be traversed or avoided of Kawai in order to increase the reliability and capability of self-propelled navigation (Kawai - ¶8).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsudaira et al. (US 2021/0146544) discloses a robot control device including detecting external forces applied to a robot based on contact with an obstacle or whether or not eh vehicle is traversing an area with a difference in the level of the floor (¶4).
Akatsuka et al. (US 2022/0242421) discloses a remote driving device/system including determining an operation reaction force to be applied to the vehicle in response to an external input (¶4).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
1 Work | Definition, Formula, & Units | Britannica
Prosecution Insights