DETAIL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's application filed August 30, 2024. Claims 1-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Objection
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The invention claims foreign priority to JP2022-106257. However, the specification lacks cross-reference to this foreign priority. See (b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
5. 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 reference route acquisition unit that acquires information” and “a return route acquisition unit that acquires a return route.”, in claim 13.
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 examiner notes that the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function described is found in the specification to be a computer (28) in at least paragraph 29, figure 5.
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.
Judicial Exception Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A route setting method comprising: a step of acquiring information of a reference route which is a route along which a moving body moves; a step of determining whether or not the moving body is positioned on the reference route; and a step of setting a return route which is a route for reaching a merging position on the reference route in a case where the moving body is not positioned on the reference route.”.
The limitations of claim 1 above, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a moving body” nothing in the claims elements precludes the steps from practically being performed as part of human activities. For example, “a step of acquiring information of a reference route” in the context of this claim encompasses the user the user manually or mentally observing/thinking about a reference route. Similarly, the limitation of “a step of determining whether or not the moving body is positioned on the reference route”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind where a person is mentally able to determine a current position. 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 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. “a step of setting a return route” is not a practical application. Accordingly, the claim lack of additional elements that 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. The independent claims 2-11 and 14-15 are also rejected for their dependency upon claim 1. Further, claims 12-13 are also rejected because they amount no more than the same mere instructions of the method of claim 1 in a system which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
8. Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
9. Claim 12 requires a non-transitory computer readable store medium, which stores a program. The specification does not set forth what constitutes a non-transitory computer readable store medium, and therefore, in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media and in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, said medium could be directed towards a transitory propagating signal per se and considered to be non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug 24, 2009, p. 2. Claims that recite nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, such as a frequency, voltage, or the strength of a magnetic field, define energy or magnetism, per se, and as such are nonstatutory natural phenomena. O'Reilly, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 112-14. Moreover, it does not appear that a claim reciting a signal encoded with functional descriptive material falls within any of the categories of patentable subject matter set forth in §101. Please refer to MPEP 2111.01 and the USPTO’s “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media” memorandum dated January 26, 2010.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Salour et al, US 2019/0310626, in view of Jacobus et al. US 2021/0035057, hereinafter referred to as Salour and Jacobus, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Salour discloses a route setting method comprising:
a step of acquiring information of a reference route which is a route along which a moving body moves (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, “acquiring image data using the cameras while the autonomous vehicle is moving along the planned path in the area; processing the image data to detect a presence of and determine a current position of an object in the area;”);
a step of determining whether or not the moving body is positioned on the reference route (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 55, 57, 58, 8 “the method further comprises: determining a current position of the autonomous vehicle along the planned path; determining a current separation distance separating the object and the autonomous vehicle; and determining whether the separation distance is less than a specified threshold or not”);
and
a step of setting a return route which is a route for reaching a merging position on the reference route in a case where the moving body is not positioned on the reference route (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 55, 57, 8, 52, 58, “determine an alternative path for the AGV 10 that avoids the object, wherein at least some of the vehicle guidance data represent routing data for the alternative path”).
Salour fails to explicitly disclose reaching a merging position on the reference route.
However, Jacobus teaches reaching a merging position on the reference route (See at least fig 1-32B, ¶ 88, 76, “comparing the vehicle self-locations against planned paths, error or path deviations generating steering correction feedback so that the vehicle approximately follows the planned path to accomplish movement from a point A to point B along allowed driving lanes. Even maneuvers to circumnavigate around obstacles will be generated and executed as small localized path changes and therefore are accomplished through the same basic steering and movement control system [FIG. 5]”).
Therefore, 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 method of Salour and include reaching a merging position on the reference route as taught by Jacobus because it would allow the method to identify static and dynamic obstacles and people and either avoid them or stop until potential collision risk is removed (Jacobus ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 2, Salour discloses the route setting method according to claim 1, wherein in the step of setting the return route, the return route is set such that the moving body moving along the return route does not interfere with an obstacle (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 55, 57, 8, 52, 58, 70, “The path control server 6 is further configured with an algorithm that can determine what control action to take when the estimated separation distance becomes less than a specified threshold. Typically the control action is to trigger
the transmission of vehicle guidance signals to the vehicle management system 8, which vehicle guidance signals contain digital information representing a recommended action
to be taken, for example, delay, reroute, or emergency stop the AGV 10 to avoid collision”).
Regarding claim 3, Salour discloses the route setting method according to claim 1, wherein in the step of setting the return route, the merging position is selected from among a plurality of candidate positions on the reference route, and the return route to the selected merging position is set (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 55, 57, 8, 52, 58, 70, 69, “This data representing current movements and paths of the AGV 10 is received by the path control server 6, which compares the incoming data to stored data representing the pre-programmed paths and headings”).
Regarding claim 4, Salour discloses the route setting method according to claim 3, wherein in the step of setting the return route, a candidate route to the candidate position is set for each of the candidate positions, and the return route is selected from among a plurality of the candidate routes (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 55, 57, 8, 52, 58, 70, 69, 3, “methods for monitoring the entire planned path of an autonomous vehicle (i.e., an AGV or a mobile robot) and sending alert messages to a vehicle management system for delays, reroute, or emergency stop to avoid collision with an object or person. The system initiates alternative paths when the primary path of the autonomous vehicle is blocked”).
Regarding claim 5, Salour discloses the route setting method according to claim 4, wherein in the step of setting the return route, a route on which the moving body moving along the candidate route does not interfere with an obstacle is selected as the return route, from among the plurality of candidate routes (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 55, 57, 8, 52, 58, 70, 69, 3, 48, “The guidance system is configured to guide the AGVs along different paths on the ground 346 of the manufacturing facility 300. The different paths are defined by a plurality 348 of magnetic bars on the ground 346. The magnetic bars 348 on the ground 346 may include, for example, magnetic bars 350-353”).
Regarding claim 6, Salour discloses the route setting method according to claim 1, wherein in the step of setting the return route, a route including at least one of a linear route having a linear shape that approaches the merging position and an arc route having an arc shape that approaches the merging position is set as the return route (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 55, 57, 8, 52, 58, 70, 69, 3, 48, 64, “The system initiates alternative paths when the primary path is blocked and is capable of reporting the vehicle position and identification number along the path. The technology disclosed herein can be used to control AGVs or mobile robots to provide an alternative safe path or to cause the vehicle to slow down when the primary path of an autonomous vehicle is blocked by an obstacle or when a collision is imminent.”).
Regarding claim 7, Salour discloses the route setting method according to claim 6, wherein in the step of setting the return route, a route including a turning route away from the merging position is set as the return route in a case where the moving body interferes with an obstacle, on a route including at least only one of the linear route and the arc route (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 55, 57, 8, 52, 58, 70, 69, 3, 48, 64, 13, “determine an alternative
path for the autonomous vehicle that avoids the object, wherein at least some of the vehicle guidance signals represent routing data for the alternative path”).
Regarding claim 8, Salour discloses the route setting method according to claim 6, wherein in the step of setting the return route, a turn radius of the arc route is set by a binary search in which a minimum turn radius set in advance is set as a minimum value and a maximum turn radius set in advance is set as a maximum value (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 57, 8, 52, 58, 70, 69, 3, 48, 64, 13, 55, “The vehicle management system 8 is configured for controlling movement of the AGV 10, including sending control signals for altering the planned path of the AGV 10 when an obstruction is detected”).
Regarding claim 9, Salour discloses the route setting method according to claim 1, wherein in the step of setting the return route, the return route is set based on an approach route for approaching a target object in a case where the moving body is not positioned on the reference route because the moving body has moved along the approach route from the reference route (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 57, 8, 52, 58, 69, 3, 48, 64, 13, 55, 70, “The path control server 6 is further configured with an algorithm that can determine what control action to take when the estimated separation distance becomes less than a specified threshold. Typically the control action is to trigger the transmission of vehicle guidance signals to the vehicle management system 8, which vehicle guidance signals contain digital information representing a recommended action to be taken, for example, delay, reroute, or emergency stop the AGV 10 to avoid collision”).
Regarding claim 10, Salour discloses the route setting method according to claim 1, wherein in the step of acquiring the information of the reference route, information of a plurality of the reference routes is acquired, and in the step of setting the return route, the return route for reaching the merging position is set for each of the plurality of reference routes, and the reference route to be used for the movement of the moving body is selected from among the reference routes based on each of the return routes (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 57, 8, 52, 58, 69, 3, 48, 64, 13, 55, 70, 5, “the AGV will able to see the route blockage before the AGV initiates its route and eliminate any delays by selecting an alternative route. This enhanced situational awareness for AGVs is the result of synergistically integrating a sensor system with an AGV system. This additional capability gives the AGV the opportunity to eliminate delays, increase efficiency, keep production parts undamaged, as well as create a safer work environment for mechanics in the area”).
Regarding claim 11, Salour discloses the route setting method according to claim 1, further comprising: a step of setting a periphery of the return route to a prohibited region in which a movement of another moving body is not permitted, while the moving body is moving along the return route (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 57, 8, 52, 58, 69, 3, 48, 64, 13, 55, 70, 5, 11, “The autonomous vehicle is communicatively coupled to receive the control signals
from the vehicle management system and is configured to discontinue a current movement in response to receipt of the control signals.”).
Regarding claim 12, Salour discloses a computer-readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute:
a step of acquiring information of a reference route which is a route along which a moving body moves (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, “acquiring image data using the cameras while the autonomous vehicle is moving along the planned path in the area; processing the image data to detect a presence of and determine a current position of an object in the area;”);
a step of determining whether or not the moving body is positioned on the reference route (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 55, 57, 58, 8 “the method further comprises: determining a current position of the autonomous vehicle along the planned path; determining a current separation distance separating the object and the autonomous vehicle; and determining whether the separation distance is less than a specified threshold or not”); and
a step of setting a return route which is a route for reaching a merging position on the reference route in a case where the moving body is not positioned on the reference route (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 55, 57, 8, 52, 58, “determine an alternative path for the AGV 10 that avoids the object, wherein at least some of the vehicle guidance data represent routing data for the alternative path”).
Salour fails to explicitly disclose reaching a merging position on the reference route.
However, Jacobus teaches reaching a merging position on the reference route (See at least fig 1-32B, ¶ 88, 76, “comparing the vehicle self-locations against planned paths, error or path deviations generating steering correction feedback so that the vehicle approximately follows the planned path to accomplish movement from a point A to point B along allowed driving lanes. Even maneuvers to circumnavigate around obstacles will be generated and executed as small localized path changes and therefore are accomplished through the same basic steering and movement control system [FIG. 5]”).
Therefore, 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 method of Salour and include reaching a merging position on the reference route as taught by Jacobus because it would allow the method to identify static and dynamic obstacles and people and either avoid them or stop until potential collision risk is removed (Jacobus ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 13, Salour discloses a moving body that automatically moves, comprising:
a reference route acquisition unit that acquires information of a reference route which is a route for moving (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, “acquiring image data using the cameras while the autonomous vehicle is moving along the planned path in the area; processing the image data to detect a presence of and determine a current position of an object in the area;”); and
a return route acquisition unit that acquires a return route which is a route for reaching a merging position on the reference route in a case where the moving body is not positioned on the reference route (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 55, 57, 8, 52, 58, “determine an alternative path for the AGV 10 that avoids the object, wherein at least some of the vehicle guidance data represent routing data for the alternative path”).
Salour fails to explicitly disclose reaching a merging position on the reference route.
However, Jacobus teaches reaching a merging position on the reference route (See at least fig 1-32B, ¶ 88, 76, “comparing the vehicle self-locations against planned paths, error or path deviations generating steering correction feedback so that the vehicle approximately follows the planned path to accomplish movement from a point A to point B along allowed driving lanes. Even maneuvers to circumnavigate around obstacles will be generated and executed as small localized path changes and therefore are accomplished through the same basic steering and movement control system [FIG. 5]”).
Therefore, 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 method of Salour and include reaching a merging position on the reference route as taught by Jacobus because it would allow the method to identify static and dynamic obstacles and people and either avoid them or stop until potential collision risk is removed (Jacobus ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 14, Salour discloses the route setting method according to claim 7, wherein in the step of setting the return route, a linear route that is away from the merging position is set as the turning route (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 55, 57, 8, 52, 58, 70, 69, 3, 48, 64, “The system initiates alternative paths when the primary path is blocked and is capable of reporting the vehicle position and identification number along the path. The technology disclosed herein can be used to control AGVs or mobile robots to provide an alternative safe path or to cause the vehicle to slow down when the primary path of an autonomous vehicle is blocked by an obstacle or when a collision is imminent.”).
Regarding claim 15, Salour discloses the route setting method according to claim 7, wherein in the step of setting the return route, in a case where there are a plurality of candidate routes that do not interfere with an obstacle from among candidate routes for the return route including the turning route, a candidate route in which a turn radius of the arc route is at its maximum is selected as the return route from among the plurality of candidate routes (See at least fig 1-11, ¶ 11, 15, 37, 42, 46, 47, 7, 54, 57, 8, 52, 58, 70, 69, 3, 48, 64, 13, 55, “The vehicle management system 8 is configured for controlling movement of the AGV 10, including sending control signals for altering the planned path of the AGV 10 when an obstruction is detected”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665