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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a guide element” in line 1 and later recites “a position of a guide element” in lines 6-7. The examiner is treating the guide element of lines 6-7 as being the same guide element recited in line 1 and recommends changing the limitation “a position of a guide element” to “a position of the guide element”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) is/are: “a drive system”, “a wireless locating system”, and “a control system” in claims 1-17.
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. The limitation “a drive system” is interpreted to be a system including a transmission 1310 and a steering system 1320 as disclosed in Paragraph 0279. The limitation “a wireless locating system” is interpreted to be one or more selected from a laser rangefinder; radar rangefinder; sonar rangefinder; infrared rangefinder; or any other suitable wireless range finding system for tracking the distance and/or direction of the guide element as disclosed in Paragraph 0283. The limitation “a control system” is interpreted as a controller comprising semiconductor memory as disclosed in Paragraphs 0290-0292.
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
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the location of the guide element" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 discloses “a wireless locating system configured for locating a position of a guide element” and later claims “a control system configured for: wirelessly determining the location of the guide element using the wireless locating system”. Since the applicant is claiming two elements, “a wireless locating system” and ““a control system” performing two different functions “locating a position”, and “determining the location”, it is not clear to the examiner if “locating a position of a guide element” and “the location of the guide element” are equivalent or different. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “wirelessly determining a
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same path traversed by the guide element" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant claims “mapping the determined location of the guide element over time as a path” and later claims “the same path traversed by the guide element”. It is not clear to the examiner if every path traversed by the guide element is mapped or not in order to say that “the same path traversed by the guide element” is “the mapped path overtime”. A path traversed by the guide element doesn’t have to be mapped, therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the same path traversed by the guide element” in the claim. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “mapping the determined location of the guide element over time as a traversed path; and iii. controlling the drive system to follow the
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the location" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “a location”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the traversed path" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as recited above. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “b. mapping the location of the guide element over time as a traversed path; and c. controlling the drive system to follow the path traversed by the guide element”.
Claims 2-7, and 10 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “the control system”
Claims 2-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 12 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10, 12, 14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto US 2021/0031769 A1 (hence Matsumoto).
In re claims 1 and 12, Matsumoto discloses a following target identification system is used for identifying a following target of a moving object configured to move autonomously (Abstract) including a robot, an electric cart, a drone, or the like that moves autonomously (Paragraph 0005) and teaches the following:
An autonomous follower vehicle (“AFV”) for following a guide element (Paragraph 0001 “identifying a following target of a moving object configured to move autonomously”), the autonomous follower vehicle including:
a. a power source (Paragraph 0005 “a robot, an electric cart, a drone, or the like) that moves autonomously to follow the following target”, all the recited elements inherently contain a power source);
b. a prime mover (Fig.1, #22, and Paragraph 0064 “a driving device”);
c. a drive system configured for driving and steering the AFV (Fig.1, #21, #24, and Paragraph 0064 “a steering device” and “a travel control unit”);
d. a wireless locating system configured for locating a position of a guide element (Fig.1, #11, #13, and Paragraph 0066 “wireless communication unit 11 is configured to communicate with the target terminal 17”, Paragraph 0067 “the wireless communication unit 11 continuously (or on a prescribed cycle) receives information for determining the position of the following target (namely, a current position during the following operation) from the target terminal 17”, and Paragraph 0070 “a Light Detection and Ranging technology or a Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging technology (LIDAR technology)”);
e. a control system (Fig.1, #16 and Paragraph 0063 “a following control unit”) configured for:
i. wirelessly determining the location of the guide element using the wireless locating system (Paragraph 0067 ““the wireless communication unit 11 continuously (or on a prescribed cycle) receives information for determining the position of the following target (namely, a current position during the following operation) from the target terminal 17”);
ii. mapping the determined location of the guide element over time as a path (Paragraph 0075 “determines the following target position on a prescribed cycle”, Paragraph 0076 “the following control unit 16 sequentially determines the following target position based on a first position and a second position”);
and iii. controlling the drive system to follow the same path traversed by the guide element (Paragraph 0079 “the following control unit 16 is configured to send information including the determined following target position (hereinafter referred to as “following position information”) to the travel control unit 24”), and Paragraph 0084 “The travel control unit 24 is configured to centrally control the steering device 21, the driving device 22, and the brake device 23 based on the following position information (for example, a current position of the leading vehicle 3) from the following control unit 16”)
In re claim 2, Matsumoto teaches the following:
a. controlling the drive system to follow the path traversed by the guide element using inertial navigation (Paragraph 0073 “The information of the following vehicle 2 (hereinafter referred to as “following side information”) acquired (or measured) by the IMU 14 is sent to the following control unit 16”, and Paragraph 0075 “The following control unit 16 sequentially acquires… and the following side information from the IMU 14, and thus determines the following target position on a prescribed cycle based on the above-mentioned information”)
In re claims 4 and 14, Matsumoto teaches the following:
a. testing whether the location of the guide element is within a predetermined range of the AFV (Paragraph 0037 “in a case where the magnitude of the change in direction is equal to or greater than a second threshold value that is greater than the first threshold value”);
and b. stopping movement of the AFV in the event that the location of the guide element is within a predetermined range of the AFV (Paragraph 0037 “the movement control unit controls the moving operation of the moving object such that a movement of the moving object toward the following target is stopped”)
In re claims 6 and 16, Matsumoto teaches the following:
wherein the controller is configured for: a. receiving a sensor signals indicative of speed and heading of the AFV; b. determining a distance and heading that the AFV has travelled from the sensor signals; and c. mapping an updated location of AFV relative to the determined path of the guide element (Paragraphs 0073-0075)
In re claims 7 and 17, Matsumoto teaches the following:
wherein the controller is configured for: a. calculating a speed of the guide element along the path; b. calculating a speed of the AFV along the path; c. comparing the calculated speed of the guide element along the path to the calculated speed and direction of movement of the AFV along the path; and d. controlling the drive system to cause the AFV to match the speed of the guide element along the path (Paragraph 0084 “the travel control unit 24 can control a following operation of the following vehicle 2 to follow the leading vehicle 3 so as to maintain a preset inter-vehicle distance between the following vehicle 2 and the leading vehicle 3 based on a distance and speed difference therebetween obtained from the following position information”)
In re claim 10, Matsumoto teaches the following:
wherein the controller is configured for: a. controlling the drive system to keep the autonomous follower vehicle in the same position while the guide element is moving towards the autonomous follower vehicle (Paragraph 0038 “in a case where the magnitude of the change in direction is equal to or greater than the second threshold value that is greater than the first threshold value (namely, in a case where the person probably needs to move in the opposite direction), it is possible to prevent the moving object (namely, the cart) from obstructing the movement of the person by stopping the moving object”)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto US 2021/0031769 A1 (hence Matsumoto) in view of Tsuda JP 2014130529 A (the examiner is providing an English translation and relying upon, hence Tsuda).
In re claims 3 and 13, Matsumoto discloses sequentially determines the following target position based on a first position and a second position (Paragraph 0076), but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the controller is configured for: a. plotting the location of the guide element at an absolute geographic location on an electronic map over time, with reference to the AFV
Nevertheless, Tsuda discloses a new road determination method for determining a new road not included in map information (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the controller is configured for: a. plotting the location of the guide element at an absolute geographic location on an electronic map over time, with reference to the AFV (Page 3, underlined portion, and Fig.3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Matsumoto reference to include plotting the position of the vehicle on the map every predetermined elapsed time, as taught by Tsuda, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determining a new road not included in map information (Tsuda, Abstract).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto US 2021/0031769 A1 (hence Matsumoto) in view of Yamamoto et al US 2024/0126301 A1 (hence Yamamoto).
In re claims 5 and 15, Matsumoto discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the controller is configured for: a. allocating a path width to the determined path; and b. controlling the drive system to cause the AFV to follow the determined path while staying within the allocated width
Nevertheless, Yamamoto discloses an unmanned vehicle management system (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the controller is configured for: a. allocating a path width to the determined path; and b. controlling the drive system to cause the AFV to follow the determined path while staying within the allocated width (Fig.8, Paragraph 0100 “The traveling area definition unit 61 calculates the first track width WL1 of the first traveling area 103” and Paragraph 0102)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Matsumoto reference to include the travelling area width determination, as taught by Yamamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine whether the unmanned vehicle can pass the area or not (Yamamoto, Paragraph 0104).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto US 2021/0031769 A1 (hence Matsumoto) in view of Jin et al US 11,435,754 B2 (hence Jin).
In re claim 8, Matsumoto discloses the claimed invention as recited above including an electric cart (Paragraph 0005) but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the AFV is configured for carrying a container
Nevertheless, Jin discloses a moving unit that moves the apparatus so as to follow operation of a target person to be followed, which is detected by the detection unit (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the AFV is configured for carrying a container (Fig.1, #10 and Col.3, Lines 34-39)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Matsumoto reference to include a carrier portion on which a package such as a packing box is to be loaded, as taught by Jin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to support a delivery person who collects and delivers a package (Jin, Col.3, Lines 34-39)
In re claim 9, Jin teaches the following:
wherein the container is a removable container (Fig.1, #10 and Col.3, Lines 34-39, motivation to combine has been presented above)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto US 2021/0031769 A1 (hence Matsumoto) in view of Chen CN 217598622 U (the examiner is providing an English translation and relying upon, hence Chen).
In re claim 11, Matsumoto discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the AFV includes: a. a chassis configured for being reconfigured between a i. deployed configuration in which the chassis is capable of carrying a load, and a ii. retracted configuration in which the chassis is reduced in size
Nevertheless, Chen discloses a bundle folding stroller (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the AFV includes: a. a chassis configured for being reconfigured between a i. deployed configuration in which the chassis is capable of carrying a load, and a ii. retracted configuration in which the chassis is reduced in size (Pages 6-7, underlined portions “retraction process”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Matsumoto reference to include the retraction process, as taught by Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a bundle type folding cart (Chen, Page 1, underlined portion)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wittliff, III US 9,643,638 B1 discloses motorized service carts, tool boxes, or workstations, and more particularly to a remotely controllable moveable service cart, tool box, workstation.
Febbo et al US 20210080589 A1 discloses a comprehensive trajectory planner for a person-following vehicle that includes receiving image data and LiDAR data associated with a surrounding environment of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669