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 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 determination unit configured to determine whether a vehicle is on a conveyor..”
“ a conveyance velocity acquisition unit configured to acquire a conveyance velocity of the conveyor;”
“a decision unit configured to decide a target vehicle velocity of the vehicle…determines that the vehicle is on the conveyor”
“a target velocity acquisition unit configured to acquire a first target velocity…”
“the decision unit is configured to calculate a second target velocity…”
“the decision unit is configured to decide… calculate the second target velocity…”
in claims 1-4.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure for the above limitation described in the specification: (see at least Applicant Specification, para. [0028]: The processor 201 executes the program PG2 stored in the memory 202, and thereby, realizes various functions including functions as a remote control unit 210, a determination unit 215, a target velocity acquisition unit 220, a conveyance velocity acquisition unit 230, a decision unit 240, and an instruction unit 250.).
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 § 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.
Claim 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 & 5-6 recite determine whether a vehicle is on a conveyor, the vehicle being capable of traveling by unmanned driving, acquire a conveyance velocity of the conveyor, decide a target vehicle velocity of the vehicle based on the acquired conveyance velocity, as drafted, is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer elements. The claim is practically able to be performed in the mind. For example, but for the “A device comprising, a determination unit, a conveyance velocity acquisition unit, a decision unit, a target velocity acquisition unit, A control method for a vehicle, comprising, a device comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute,” language, “determine whether a vehicle is on a conveyor, the vehicle being capable of traveling by unmanned driving, acquire a conveyance velocity of the conveyor, decide a target vehicle velocity of the vehicle based on the acquired conveyance velocity” in the context of this claim encompasses the user discerning a speed of a conveyor and calculating the speed required for the vehicle to imitate the speed of the conveyor. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using “A device comprising, a determination unit, a conveyance velocity acquisition unit, a decision unit, a target velocity acquisition unit, A control method for a vehicle, comprising, a device comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute,”. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect the target speed of the vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “A device comprising, a determination unit, a conveyance velocity acquisition unit, a decision unit, a target velocity acquisition unit, an instruction unit, A control method for a vehicle, comprising, a device comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute,”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 2-3, acquire a first target velocity of the vehicle, calculate a second target velocity based on the acquired first target velocity and the acquired conveyance velocity, decide that the target vehicle velocity is the calculated second target velocity, calculate the second target velocity by subtracting the conveyance velocity from the first target velocity, is a device that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “acquire a first target velocity of the vehicle, calculate a second target velocity based on the acquired first target velocity and the acquired conveyance velocity, decide that the target vehicle velocity is the calculated second target velocity, calculate the second target velocity by subtracting the conveyance velocity from the first target velocity” in the context of this claim encompasses the user calculating the target speed of the vehicle based on the speed of the conveyor. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect the target speed of the vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0047627A1 (“Moon”).
As per claim 1 Moon discloses
A device comprising (see at least Moon, para. [0151]: An example of the controller may include a processor 180 installed in the mobile robot 200 to control the mobile robot 200 and, more particularly, the driving motor 202.):
a determination unit configured to determine whether a vehicle is on a conveyor, the vehicle being capable of traveling by unmanned driving (see at least Moon, para. [0157-0158]: The controller 180 may change the speed of the driving motor 202 according to the sensing value of the auxiliary wheel sensor 220 and, more particularly, the load cell 230…When the mobile robot 200 travels, the auxiliary wheel 210 may enter the moving walkway MW earlier than the driving wheel 201, and the auxiliary wheel 210 may move along the moving walkway MW after entering the moving walkway MW.);
a conveyance velocity acquisition unit configured to acquire a conveyance velocity of the conveyor (see at least Moon, para. [0162-0163]: The mobile robot 200 may enter the moving walkway MW at a higher or lower moving speed than the moving walkway MW…The "movement speed of the moving walkway MW" described in this specification may be defined as a speed at which the moving body MB moves in a straight line between the pair of fixed bodies FB.); and
a decision unit configured to decide a target vehicle velocity of the vehicle based on the acquired conveyance velocity, when the determination unit determines that the vehicle is on the conveyor (see at least Moon, para. [0167-0170]: When the movement speed of the moving walkway MW is higher than that of the mobile robot 200, the auxiliary wheel 210 may move at a higher speed than the mobile robot 200 when moving along the moving body MB of the moving walkway MW after entering the moving walkway MW…When the length of the spring 240 increases, the movement speed of the auxiliary wheel 210 is higher than the movement speed of the mobile robot 200 and the controller 180 may control the driving motor 202 such that the movement speed Va of the mobile robot 200 is similar or equal to the movement speed Vb of the auxiliary wheel 210. To this end, the controller 180 may accelerate the driving motor 202 as compared to before the auxiliary wheel 210 enters the moving walkway MW.).
As per claim 2 Moon discloses
further comprising a target velocity acquisition unit configured to acquire a first target velocity of the vehicle (see at least Moon, para. [0181]: The method of controlling the robot system may include a sensing step Sl in which the auxiliary wheel sensor 220 senses the movement speed Vb of the auxiliary wheel 210;), wherein:
the decision unit is configured to calculate a second target velocity based on the acquired first target velocity and the acquired conveyance velocity (see at least Moon, para. [0196]: The controller 180 may compare the movement speed Vb of the auxiliary wheel 201 sensed by the auxiliary wheel sensor 220 with the movement speed Va of the mobile robot 200 after the auxiliary wheel 201 enters the moving walkway MW, determine that the movement speed Vb of the auxiliary wheel 201 is higher than the movement speed Va of the mobile robot 200, and accelerate the driving motor 202 (S3 and S4).); and
the decision unit is configured to decide that the target vehicle velocity is the calculated second target velocity (see at least Moon, para. [0198-0199]: During the acceleration processes S3 and S4, the controller 180 may accelerate the driving motor 202 at a positive first acceleration Accl….The acceleration processes S3 and S4 may be finished when the driving wheel 201 enters the moving walkway MW.).
As per claim 3 Moon discloses
wherein the decision unit is configured to calculate the second target velocity by subtracting the conveyance velocity from the first target velocity (see at least Moon, para. [0195-0197]: Referring to FIG. 9, when the movement speed Vb of the auxiliary wheel 201 is higher than the movement speed Va of the mobile robot 200 after the auxiliary wheel 201 enters the moving walkway MW, the length x of the spring 240 may gradually increase by the difference Vb-Va of the speeds of the auxiliary wheel 201 and the mobile robot 200 as time elapses, and pressure applied to the auxiliary wheel sensor 220 and, more particularly, the load cell 230 may gradually decrease…The controller 180 may compare the movement speed Vb of the auxiliary wheel 201 sensed by the auxiliary wheel sensor 220 with the movement speed Va of the mobile robot 200 after the auxiliary wheel 201 enters the moving walkway MW, determine that the movement speed Vb of the auxiliary wheel 201 is higher than the movement speed Va of the mobile robot 200, and accelerate the driving motor 202 (S3 and S4).).
As per claim 4 Moon discloses
further comprising an instruction unit configured to instruct the vehicle such that a vehicle velocity of the vehicle becomes the target vehicle velocity, when the vehicle is on the conveyor (see at least Moon, para. [0166-0168]: When the movement speed Vb of the auxiliary wheel 210 is higher than the movement speed Va of the mobile robot 200 after the auxiliary wheel 210 enters the moving walkway MW, the controller 180 may accelerate the driving motor 202…When the length of the spring 240 increases, the movement speed of the auxiliary wheel 210 is higher than the movement speed of the mobile robot 200 and the controller 180 may control the driving motor 202 such that the movement speed Va of the mobile robot 200 is similar or equal to the movement speed Vb of the auxiliary wheel 210. To this end, the controller 180 may accelerate the driving motor 202 as compared to before the auxiliary wheel 210 enters the moving walkway MW..
As per claim 5 Moon discloses
A control method for a vehicle (see at least Moon, para. [0176]: FIG. 8 is a flowchart illustrating a method of controlling a robot system..), comprising:
determining whether the vehicle is on a conveyor, the vehicle being capable of traveling by unmanned driving (see at least Moon, para. [0157-0158]: The controller 180 may change the speed of the driving motor 202 according to the sensing value of the auxiliary wheel sensor 220 and, more particularly, the load cell 230…When the mobile robot 200 travels, the auxiliary wheel 210 may enter the moving walkway MW earlier than the driving wheel 201, and the auxiliary wheel 210 may move along the moving walkway MW after entering the moving walkway MW.);
acquiring a conveyance velocity of the conveyor (see at least Moon, para. [0162-0163]: The mobile robot 200 may enter the moving walkway MW at a higher or lower moving speed than the moving walkway MW…The "movement speed of the moving walkway MW" described in this specification may be defined as a speed at which the moving body MB moves in a straight line between the pair of fixed bodies FB.); and
deciding a target vehicle velocity of the vehicle based on the acquired conveyance velocity, when a determination unit determines that the vehicle is on the conveyor (see at least Moon, para. [0167-0170]: When the movement speed of the moving walkway MW is higher than that of the mobile robot 200, the auxiliary wheel 210 may move at a higher speed than the mobile robot 200 when moving along the moving body MB of the moving walkway MW after entering the moving walkway MW…When the length of the spring 240 increases, the movement speed of the auxiliary wheel 210 is higher than the movement speed of the mobile robot 200 and the controller 180 may control the driving motor 202 such that the movement speed Va of the mobile robot 200 is similar or equal to the movement speed Vb of the auxiliary wheel 210. To this end, the controller 180 may accelerate the driving motor 202 as compared to before the auxiliary wheel 210 enters the moving walkway MW.).
As per claim 6 Moon discloses
A device comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute (see at least Moon, para. [0151]: An example of the controller may include a processor 180 installed in the mobile robot 200 to control the mobile robot 200 and, more particularly, the driving motor 202.):
determining whether a vehicle is on a conveyor, the vehicle being capable of traveling by unmanned driving (see at least Moon, para. [0157-0158]: The controller 180 may change the speed of the driving motor 202 according to the sensing value of the auxiliary wheel sensor 220 and, more particularly, the load cell 230…When the mobile robot 200 travels, the auxiliary wheel 210 may enter the moving walkway MW earlier than the driving wheel 201, and the auxiliary wheel 210 may move along the moving walkway MW after entering the moving walkway MW.);
acquiring a conveyance velocity of the conveyor (see at least Moon, para. [0162-0163]: The mobile robot 200 may enter the moving walkway MW at a higher or lower moving speed than the moving walkway MW…The "movement speed of the moving walkway MW" described in this specification may be defined as a speed at which the moving body MB moves in a straight line between the pair of fixed bodies FB.); and
deciding a target vehicle velocity of the vehicle based on the acquired conveyance velocity, when determining that the vehicle is on the conveyor (see at least Moon, para. [0167-0170]: When the movement speed of the moving walkway MW is higher than that of the mobile robot 200, the auxiliary wheel 210 may move at a higher speed than the mobile robot 200 when moving along the moving body MB of the moving walkway MW after entering the moving walkway MW…When the length of the spring 240 increases, the movement speed of the auxiliary wheel 210 is higher than the movement speed of the mobile robot 200 and the controller 180 may control the driving motor 202 such that the movement speed Va of the mobile robot 200 is similar or equal to the movement speed Vb of the auxiliary wheel 210. To this end, the controller 180 may accelerate the driving motor 202 as compared to before the auxiliary wheel 210 enters the moving walkway MW.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM 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, 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.
/MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668