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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on August 23, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to Japanese Patent No. JP 2023-186389, filed October 31, 2023.
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 4, 8, and 15 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.
As to claims 4, and 15, the recitation “during traveling of the mobile object on the other traveling path, the reliability is calculated” is vague and indefinite. Claim 4 depends from claim 2 which establishes travel on “the other traveling path” occurs after calculating reliability. However, claim 4 appears to calculate reliability after the vehicle is already traveling on the other traveling path. It is unclear how to reconcile the reliance of reliability and traveling on the other path as claims 2 and 4 appear to contradict each other.
Additionally, the recitations “DOP,” and “S/N” are vague and indefinite as Applicant has not defined these acronyms.
Therefore, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Claim 8 depends from claim 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al., US 20100235033 A1, hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto.
As to claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a mobile object control device comprising:
a processor for executing a program; and
a memory or a hard disk for storing the program, wherein the following operation is performed by the program executed by the processor,
acquiring prescribed path information indicating whether or not a mobile object as a control target is traveling on a prescribed path (Path information – See at least ¶7);
acquiring obstacle information which is information about an obstacle including presence/absence of the obstacle on the prescribed path (Detect obstacle – See at least Abstract);
acquiring position orientation information indicating a position and an orientation of the mobile object (Posture information and path information of moving device – See at least Claim 1);
judging whether or not the mobile object is traveling on the prescribed path, on the basis of the prescribed path information (Prescribed path – See at least ¶64);
judging whether or not there is a possibility that the mobile object has a collision with the obstacle (Collision prediction – See at least Abstract and ¶43); and,
determining whether or not to switch a traveling path of the mobile object from the prescribed path so as to cause the mobile object to travel on a traveling path other than the prescribed path if it is judged that there is the possibility of the collision (Switch from prescribed path to avoid collision – See at least ¶64).
Independent claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter.
As to claims 5, and 16, Yamamoto discloses the obstacle information includes information about movement of the obstacle (Movement of obstacle – See at least ¶1 and Claim 1).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., US 20100235033 A1, in view of Dewas et al., US 20230274649 A1, and in view of Narang et al., US 11157010 B1, hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto, Dewas, and Narang, respectively.
As to claims 2 and 13, Yamamoto fails to explicitly disclose:
calculating a reliability of the position orientation information on the basis of a relationship between the position of the mobile object and a position of the prescribed path;
determining to cause the mobile object to travel on the other traveling path if the reliability is greater than a predetermined value; and,
determining to cause the mobile object to travel on the prescribed path if the reliability is not greater than the predetermined value, wherein traveling of the mobile object is controlled on the basis of the position orientation information in a case of causing the mobile object to travel on the other traveling path as a result of the determination.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yamamoto and include the feature of calculating a reliability of the position orientation information on the basis of a relationship between the position of the mobile object and a position of the prescribed path, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Dewas teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle control arts to express reliability (or accuracy) of a vehicle position as a measure of conformity between an actual position of the vehicle and a desired (or prescribed) position (See at least ¶55 of Dewas), as part of vehicle guidance.
The combination of Yamamoto and Dewas fails to explicitly disclose following either the prescribed path or other traveling path based on whether the calculated reliability is greater than a predetermined value. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yamamoto and include the feature of the claimed following either the prescribed path or other traveling path based on whether the calculated reliability is greater than a predetermined value, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Narang teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle control arts to respond to uncertainty, i.e., reliability, by switching vehicle trajectories (Uncertainty values – See at least Col. 11 Lines 24-30; Change trajectory based on uncertainty value – See at least Col. 28 Lines 42-48 of Narang).
As to claims 3, and 14, Yamamoto fails to explicitly disclose the reliability is calculated on the basis of a difference between the position of the mobile object based on the position orientation information and the position of the prescribed path based on the prescribed path information. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yamamoto and include the feature of the reliability is calculated on the basis of a difference between the position of the mobile object based on the position orientation information and the position of the prescribed path based on the prescribed path information, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Dewas teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle control arts to express reliability (or accuracy) of a vehicle position as a measure of conformity between an actual position of the vehicle and a desired (or prescribed) position (See at least ¶55 of Dewas), as part of vehicle guidance.
As to claims 6, 7, 17, Yamamoto discloses the obstacle information includes information about movement of the obstacle (Movement of obstacle – See at least ¶1 and Claim 1).
Claims 4, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., US 20100235033 A1, in view of Dewas et al., US 20230274649 A1, and in view of Narang et al., US 11157010 B1, as applied to claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of Hirai et al., US 20250110511 A1, hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto, Dewas, Narang, and Hirai, respectively.
As to claims 4, and 15, the combination of Yamamoto, Dewas, and Narang fails to explicitly disclose the position orientation information is acquired from positioning information by a global navigation satellite system, and during traveling of the mobile object on the other traveling path, the reliability is calculated on the basis of at least one of a number of satellites of the global navigation satellite system, DOP, position error, orientation error, and an S/N ratio of a navigation signal of the global navigation satellite system. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamamoto, Dewas, and Narang and include the feature of the position orientation information is acquired from positioning information by a global navigation satellite system, and during traveling of the mobile object on the other traveling path, the reliability is calculated on the basis of at least one of a number of satellites of the global navigation satellite system, DOP, position error, orientation error, and an S/N ratio of a navigation signal of the global navigation satellite system, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Hirai teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle control arts to express reliability (or accuracy) of a vehicle position in terms of number of GPS satellites, and/or dilution of precision (See at least ¶21 of Hirai).
As to claim 8, Yamamoto discloses the obstacle information includes information about movement of the obstacle (Movement of obstacle – See at least ¶1 and Claim 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., US 20100235033 A1, in view of Ratanaphanyarat et al., US 20260003352 A1, hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto, and Ratanaphanyarat, respectively.
As to claim 10, Yamamoto discloses: the mobile object having a transportation function (Mobile object performs various transportation functions – See at least ¶1); and
Yamamoto fails to explicitly disclose a management server which generates a traveling schedule for the mobile object and includes a high-order control circuitry which transmits a control command according to the traveling schedule, to the mobile object. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yamamoto and include the feature of the reliability is calculated on the basis of a difference between the position of the mobile object based on the position orientation information and the position of the prescribed path based on the prescribed path information, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ratanaphanyarat teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle control arts to use a server to perform scheduling (See at least ¶107 of Ratanaphanyarat).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668