DETAILED ACTION
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 region angle detection unit that detects an angle of a traveling surface based on a distance image around the work machine; a region height detection unit that detects a height of the traveling surface based on the distance image; an angle obstacle region detection unit that detects an angle obstacle region that is an obstacle region based on the detected angle; a height obstacle region detection unit that detects a height obstacle region that is an obstacle region based on the detected height; and a traveling obstacle region detection unit that detects the traveling obstacle region based on the detected angle obstacle region and the detected height obstacle region in claims 1.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the terms “a region angle detection unit,” “a region height detection unit,” “an angle obstacle region detection unit,” “a height obstacle region detection unit” and “a traveling obstacle region detection unit” refers to a computer (see publication of the specification: par. 70-71 and 76).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 10 is directed to software per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Shintaro et al. (JP 2021077003 A – Machine Translation)
Regarding claim 1, Shintaro et al. disclose a control device for a moving body comprising:
a region angle detection unit (e.g., controller 10 / point cloud data acquisition unit 21) that detects an angle of a traveling surface based on a distance image around the work machine (e.g., controller 10 / point cloud data acquisition unit 21 estimates a plane of a road surface in from of a robot apparatus 2 / moving body based on image signal from a stereo camera 6 (par. 25, 56) – for instance, robot apparatus located on a horizontal road surface or inclined surface (par. 29-30, 59 and Figure 4). The robot apparatus / moving body is any body that moves on a road surface (par. 70), which covers a work machine);
a region height detection unit (e.g., controller 10 / point cloud data acquisition unit 21) that detects a height of the traveling surface based on the distance image (e.g., controller 10 / point cloud data acquisition unit 21 estimates the height of the plane of the road surface (par. 11, 41-42) based on image signal from a stereo camera 6 (par. 25));
an angle obstacle region detection unit (e.g., controller 10 / plane estimation unit 22) that detects an angle obstacle region that is an obstacle region based on the detected angle (e.g., controller 10 / plane estimation unit 22 detects object 44 on the road surface (par. 46-47) based on estimated a plane of the road surface (par. 25, 29-30));
a height obstacle region detection unit (e.g., controller 10 / plane estimation unit 22) that detects a height obstacle region that is an obstacle region based on the detected height (e.g., controller 10 / plane estimation unit 22 detects object 44 on the road surface (par. 46-47) based on estimated height of the plane of the road surface – for instance, height of the obstacle 44 on the surface (par. 41-42 and 46 and Figure 7) ); and
a traveling obstacle region detection unit (e.g., controller 10 / traveling possibility determined unit 23 (par. 38)) that detects the traveling obstacle region based on the detected angle obstacle region and the detected height obstacle region (e.g., controller 10 / traveling possibility determined unit 23 determines whether traveling is possible for the estimated road surface plane (par. 38) using cell analysis of cost map (par. 30 and 32) based on the inclination of the road surface plane (par. 29-30) and height of the road surface plane (par. 38-39, 11, 41-42 )).
Regarding claim 2, Shintaro et al. disclose a control device for a moving body, wherein the angle obstacle region detection unit (e.g., controller 10 / plane estimation unit 22) detects the angle obstacle region based on a threshold of the angle (e.g., controller 10 / plane estimation unit 22 detects object 44 on the road surface (par. 46-47) based on estimated a plane of the road surface (par. 25, 29-30) and maximum inclination angle of a slope surface (par. 31, 39 and 43)).
Regarding claim 5, Shintaro et al. disclose a control device for a moving body, wherein the height obstacle region detection unit detects the height obstacle region based on a threshold of the height (e.g., controller 10 / point cloud data acquisition unit 21 estimates the height of the plane of the road surface (par. 11, 41-42) based on maximum height (hmax) of the surface / obstacle (par. 9 and 31)).
Regarding claim 8, Shintaro et al. disclose a control device for a moving body, further comprising an object detection unit (e.g., obstacle detection device) that detects an object placed on the traveling surface (e.g., obstacle detection device detects obstacles in the traveling direction of the a robot apparatus 2 / moving body (par. 2, 46 and Figure 7) ), wherein the traveling obstacle region detection unit further detects a region of the detected object as the traveling obstacle region (e.g., controller 10 / traveling possibility determined unit 23 determines whether traveling is possible for the estimated road surface plane (par. 38) using cell analysis of cost map (par. 30 and 32) based on detect obstacles in the traveling direction of the a robot apparatus 2 / moving body (par. 2, 46 and Figure 7)).
Regarding claim 10, Shintaro et al. disclose a sequence of steps / instruction (1-8) for moving body (par. 56-63), the steps / instructions comprising:
a region angle detection procedure of detecting an angle of a traveling surface based on a distance image around the work machine (e.g., controller 10 / point cloud data acquisition unit 21 estimates a plane of a road surface in from of a robot apparatus 2 / moving body based on image signal from a stereo camera 6 (par. 25, 56) – for instance, robot apparatus located on a horizontal road surface or inclined surface (par. 29-30, 59 and Figure 4). The robot apparatus / moving body is any body that moves on a road surface (par. 70), which covers a work machine);
a region height detection procedure of detecting height of the traveling surface based on the distance image (e.g., e.g., controller 10 / point cloud data acquisition unit 21 estimates the height of the plane of the road surface (par. 11, 41-42) based on image signal from a stereo camera 6 (par. 25));
an angle obstacle region detection procedure of detecting an angle obstacle region that is an obstacle region based on the detected angle (e.g., controller 10 / plane estimation unit 22 detects object 44 on the road surface (par. 46-47) based on estimated a plane of the road surface (par. 25, 29-30));
a height obstacle region detection procedure of detecting a height obstacle region that is an obstacle region based on the detected height (e.g., controller 10 / plane estimation unit 22 detects object 44 on the road surface (par. 46-47) based on estimated height of the plane of the road surface – for instance, height of the obstacle 44 on the surface (par. 41-42 and 46 and Figure 7)); and
a traveling obstacle region detection procedure of detecting the traveling obstacle region based on the detected angle obstacle region and the detected height obstacle region (e.g., controller 10 / traveling possibility determined unit 23 determines whether traveling is possible for the estimated road surface plane (par. 38) using cell analysis of cost map (par. 30 and 32) based on the inclination of the road surface plane (par. 29-30) and height of the road surface plane (par. 38-39, 11, 41-42 )).
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 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 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintaro et al. (JP 2021077003 A – Machine Translation)
Regarding claim 3, Shintaro et al. failed to specifically disclose adjusting the threshold based on the work machine information (characteristic) for detecting the angle obstacle region (added remark).
However, as Shintaro et al. teach a maximum inclination angle of a slope (θmax) and maximum height (hmax) of an obstacle / surface that a robot / moving body (e.g., working machine) can climbs and traverses (par 31), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to reasonably allow operating threshold to be adjusted, as a matter of engineering design choice, to accommodate various working heights and inclinations of obstacle for different size of working machines.
Regarding claim 4, Shintaro et al. failed to specifically disclose adjusting the threshold based on surrounding environment information (e.g., characteristic) for detecting the angle obstacle region (added remark).
However, since the work machine can detect the obstacles and angle and distance image around the work machine as rejected in claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to adjust the operating angle threshold based on detected environment so that the work machine can detect various obstacle angles in a working environment for proper operation of the work machine..
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintaro et al. (JP 2021077003 A – Machine Translation) in view of Sung et al. (US 2017/0332871 A1)
Regarding claims 6-7, Shintaro et al. failed to specifically disclose (i) wherein the traveling obstacle region detection unit detects the traveling obstacle region by excluding a region having a predetermined height in the detected angle obstacle region and (ii) wherein the traveling obstacle region detection unit detects the traveling obstacle region by excluding a region having a predetermined width in the detected height obstacle region.
However, Sung et al. teach a robot configured to determine a height of an obstacle (par. 66) and its width (par. 86) and travel over the obstacle when the heigh of the obstacle is less than a threshold height (par. 87), which covers excluding a region having a predetermined height and width for the process of detecting traveling obstacle region – for instance, avoiding the obstacle during a trajectory of the robot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the controller of robot apparatus / moving body taught by Shintaro et al., such that the robot’s controller determines a height of an obstacle and its width for traveling over the obstacle when the heigh of the obstacle is less than a threshold height, in view of Sung et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of determining whether to continuously travel toward the object or to change direction so as to avoid the obstacle based on the object information (par. 87).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintaro et al. (JP 2021077003 A – Machine Translation) in view of Korjus et al. (US 2021/0197712 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Shintaro et al. failed to specifically disclose an occlusion region detection unit that detects an occlusion region that is a region where the angle and the height on the traveling surface cannot be detected, wherein the traveling obstacle region detection unit further detects the detected occlusion region as the traveling obstacle region.
However, Korjus et al. teach a mobile robot configured to detect occluding obstacle occluding the vision of the mobile robot to a road (par. 31), wherein the occluding obstacle exceeds a certain threshold not allowing the robot to see part of the road (par. 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the controller of robot apparatus / moving body taught by Shintaro et al., such that the robot’s controller detect occluding obstacle occluding the vision of the mobile robot to a road (par. 31), wherein the occluding obstacle exceeds a certain threshold not allowing the robot to see part of the road, in view of Korjus et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of prohibiting the mobile robot to cross the road automatically and autonomously for safety reason while performing an operator-based road crossing (par. 37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. 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.
/J.O.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656