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 1-18 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 7/1/24.
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.
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.
Such claim elements include:
an external force information acquisition unit configured to acquire external force information
an external force determination unit configured to determine a kind of the external force
a traveling control signal generation unit configured to generate a traveling control signal
a traveling control signal transmission unit configured to transmit the traveling control signal to the vehicle
*Each unit is defined in Specification ¶70 as a processor
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims discuss a device that falls under a machine in Step 1.
In Step 2A, Prong One, the device falls under an abstract idea as a mental process with nothing more than a generic computer.
Simply acquiring data, analyzing that data and generating a control based on the analysis can be performed within a human mind even with the use of a generic computer does not recite any additional elements to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
In Step 2B the claim does not recite additional claim elements that can amount to significantly more to overcome the Judicial Exception. Determining the kind of force is the mental process, acquiring information is insignificant presolutionary activity and generating the control is insignificant extrasolutionary activity
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter.
Including claim amendments to recite some form of physical control implementation such as physically executing the control signal to adjust the physical vehicle movements may overcome the rejection.
Dependent claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 control device/method for a vehicle, the control device comprising (¶34):
an external force information acquisition unit configured to 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 corresponding to the recited external force information acquisition unit);
an external force determination unit configured to determine a kind of the external force by using the external force information; and a traveling control signal generation unit configured to generate a traveling control signal for 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).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Lee further discloses wherein the kind of the external force includes a first kind of external force that needs a stop or a retreat of the vehicle and a second 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 first kind of external force, or a change in the movement direction corresponding to the recited second 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 external force information acquisition unit 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 5 and 14, Lee further discloses further comprising a traveling control signal transmission unit configured to transmit the traveling control signal to the vehicle (¶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 6 and 15, Lee further discloses the control device is mounted in the vehicle (Abstract and ¶34 – ECU/operating unit corresponding to the recited control device is included in the body of the cart corresponding to the recited mounted in the vehicle); and
the control device further comprises a vehicle controller configured to control an actuator group of the vehicle in response to the traveling control signal (¶51 – ECU controls the motors of the vehicle corresponding to the recited actuator group of the vehicle in response to the traveling control signal).
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 first kind of external force generated when the vehicle rides on an external object and a second kind of external force generated by work with respect to 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).
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 traveling control signal generation unit 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 external force determination unit is configured to perform the determination by distinguishing between a first kind of external force generated when the vehicle rides on an external object and a second kind of external force generated by work with respect to 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.
Kanda et al. (US 2005/0165508) discloses a robotic system including determining contact with an object and determining whether or not it is capable of traversing the object (¶64-67).
Choi et al. (US 2021/0100416) discloses a robotic navigation system including determining whether or not the obstacle is a climbing obstacle or not (¶124).
Conclusion
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 on 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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665