DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to preliminary amendments filed 12/23/2024.
Claim 4 has been amended.
Claims 11-16 are new claims.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 12/23/2024 have been entered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because elements 5 and 10 and Figures 1, 3, and 4 require labels. Specifically, MPEP 1.84(o) reads “Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing.” In this particular case, the Examiner has required legends for the blank numbered elements, due to one of ordinary skill in the art not being able to interpret these figures without manually labeling these components with guidance from the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
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 marker detecting part in claims 1 and 10,
a first positioning circuit in claims 1 and 10,
a second positioning circuit in claims 1 and 10, and
a control circuit in claims 1 and 10.
The circuits described supra are being interpreted consistent with Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0019] which recites:
“Control unit 3 is a computer unit including an electronic substrate (omitted in the drawing) having mounted thereon a CPU (central processing unit) that performs various arithmetic operations, memory elements such as ROM (read only memory) and RAM (random access memory), and so forth. Control unit 3 performs, with the CPU executing various software programs read from the ROM, each of functions of first positioning circuit 31, second positioning circuit 32, and control circuit 35. First positioning circuit 31 is a circuit that measures the own vehicle position with reference to magnetic marker 10. Second positioning circuit 32 is a circuit that measures the own vehicle position by autonomous navigation. Control circuit 35 is a circuit for controlling traveling of the vehicle.”
The marker detecting part is being interpreted consistent with the Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0027] which recites “[m]easuring unit 2 (FIG. 2) is a unit in which sensor array 21 forming one example of a marker detecting part and IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) 22 for autonomous navigation 22 are integrated.”
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 Objections
Claims 5, 6, 9, and 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6, 15, and 16 recite the limitation of make notification as such. The phrase “as such” is unclear and should be removed, so as to simply recite “make notification.”
Claims 5, 13, and 14 recite the limitation of an enlargement ratio when the control circuit enlarges the size of the prescribed range in accordance with the traveling distance is different between the traveling direction and the vehicle-width direction, and the enlargement ratio in the vehicle-width direction is set larger. This limitation is grammatically convoluted and thus obscures the intended scope of the claim. Since claim 4 defines the size of the prescribed range as being enlarged in accordance with a traveling distance, this limitation may simply recite “wherein the size of the prescribed range is defined by an enlargement ratio that is set larger in the vehicle-width direction than the traveling direction,” for example.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of the system is configured that a marker flag indicating whether the marker position data is linked is linked to the position data of the discrete points recorded on the database and, by referring to the marker flag. This limitation is grammatically convoluted and thus obscures the intended scope of the claim. Specifically, this limitation is missing a predicate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
a first positioning circuit that measures an own vehicle position, which is a position of the vehicle, with reference to a laying position of the magnetic marker detected by the marker detecting part;
a second positioning circuit that measures the own vehicle position in an intermediate period after the magnetic marker is detected until a new magnetic marker is detected by the marker detecting part;
the first positioning circuit is configured to identify, when the magnetic marker is detected by the marker detecting part, the magnetic marker positioned in a prescribed range with reference to the own vehicle position by the second positioning circuit by referring to the database (emphasis added).
Specifically, the “first positioning circuit” is defined as measuring the own vehicle position using the detected magnetic marker, and the “second positioning circuit” is defined as measuring the own vehicle position in a period of time after the magnetic marker is detected. However, the “first positioning circuit” is further defined as referencing the own vehicle position of the “second positioning circuit.” One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably understand how the first positioning circuit can rely on a measurement from the second positioning circuit that, by the claim’s own definition, has not yet begun its measurement period.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claims 2-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the issues of claim 1 by dependency.
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, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US 2020/0320870 A1), hereinafter Yamamoto.
Claim 1
Yamamoto discloses the claimed vehicular system for causing a vehicle to automatically travel by using magnetic markers disposed in a route (see Figure 2, depicting navigation system 1, defined as being used to capture the own vehicle position using magnetic markers 5 for automatic driving, as described in ¶0079), the system comprising:
a database recording position data of discrete points on the route (see ¶0056, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that the laying position of each magnetic marker 5 is stored in marker database 114, where the magnetic markers 5 are laid along a particular route that a vehicle should travel, as described in ¶0086; Figure 5, depicting the “position data of discrete points” associated with each marker);
a marker detecting part provided to the vehicle to detect a magnetic marker of the magnetic markers (see ¶0049, with respect to Figure 2, regarding marker detection unit 15 detects magnetic marker 5);
a first positioning circuit that measures an own vehicle position, which is a position of the vehicle, with reference to a laying position of the magnetic marker detected by the marker detecting part (see ¶0056, regarding that position capture circuit 11C captures the own vehicle position based on the laid position of the magnetic marker 5);
a second positioning circuit that measures the own vehicle position in an intermediate period after the magnetic marker is detected until a new magnetic marker is detected by the marker detecting part (see ¶0056, regarding inertial navigation circuit 11B computes relative position coordinates of vehicle 4, which are used to estimate the own vehicle position during a section between magnetic markers 5, as described in ¶0063, with respect to Figure 7); and
a control circuit that controls traveling of the vehicle by taking a deviation of the own vehicle position measured by the first positioning circuit or the second positioning circuit with respect to the route as a control target (see ¶0071-0073, with respect to steps S103, S104, and S105 of Figure 9, regarding that the lateral shift amount, defined as a deviation of the vehicle 4 in the vehicle width direction with respect to the magnetic marker 5 during passage over the magnetic marker in ¶0055, is used to correct the own vehicle position, which is used in controlling the vehicle to move along a route, as described in ¶0082).
Yamamoto further discloses that in the database, marker position data indicating a relative position of the magnetic marker with reference to a position of any of the discrete points is recorded as linked to the position data of the discrete points (see ¶0056, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that the laying position of each magnetic marker 5 is stored in marker database 114, where the magnetic markers 5 are laid along a particular route that a vehicle should travel, as described in ¶0086; Figure 5, depicting the “position data of discrete points” associated with each marker). Yamamoto teaches that the “marker position data” aligns with the “position of the discrete points,” due to the magnetic markers of Yamamoto defining the travel route. The limitation of “a relative position of the magnetic marker with reference to a position of any of the discrete points” encompasses embodiments in which the magnetic marker aligns with a position of a discrete point.
Yamamoto further discloses that the first positioning circuit is configured to identify, when the magnetic marker is detected by the marker detecting part, the magnetic marker positioned in a prescribed range with reference to the own vehicle position by the second positioning circuit by referring to the database (see ¶0071-0075, with respect to Figure 9, regarding that the own vehicle position is estimated using the positions of the detected magnetic marker 5, defined in marker database 114, as described in ¶0056; Figure 9, depicting the method is repeated, such that previous iterations that use inertial navigation in steps S112 and S113 to estimate own vehicle position are “referenced;” ¶0058, regarding that the magnetic markers 5 are provided at predefined spacings), and the control circuit is configured to identify the deviation of the own vehicle position measured by the first positioning circuit or the second positioning circuit with respect to the route by referring to the position data recorded on the database (see ¶0071-0073, with respect to steps S103, S104, and S105 of Figure 9, regarding that the lateral shift amount, defined as a deviation of the vehicle 4 in the vehicle width direction with respect to the magnetic marker 5 during passage over the magnetic marker in ¶0055, is determined by reference to the marker coordinate table in step S103).
Claim 3
Yamamoto further discloses that for each piece of position data to which the marker position data is linked among the position data recorded on the database, the first positioning circuit is configured to determine whether the laying position of the magnetic marker indicated by the linked marker position data belongs to the prescribed range and identify the magnetic marker positioned in the prescribed range (see ¶0056, regarding that position capture circuit 11C captures the own vehicle position based on the laid position of the magnetic marker 5, defined in marker database 114, as described in ¶0056, where the magnetic markers 5 are provided at predefined spacings, as described in ¶0058).
Claims 4 and 12
Yamamoto further discloses that the control circuit is configured to enlarge a size of the prescribed range in accordance of a traveling distance after the first positioning circuit identifies the own vehicle position (see ¶0058-0059, regarding that coordinates representing the laying position (and spacings) of each magnetic marker 5 are recorded in the marker database 114 which constitute the traveling path along which vehicle 4 travels). Claim 1, from which claims 4 and 12 depend, defines the magnetic marker as “positioned in a prescribed range” and does not incorporate limitations in which the prescribed range is determined; therefore, the size of the prescribed range in which the detected magnetic marker exists may be inherently enlarged as the vehicle travels to the next magnetic marker.
Claim 7
Yamamoto further discloses that the position data of the discrete points includes coordinate data indicating a position of a discrete point of the discrete points and azimuth data indicating a direction of the route at the discrete point, and the marker position data is coordinate data indicating a position on two-dimensional coordinates with an axis along the direction of the route and an axis along a direction orthogonal to the direction of the route (see ¶0058-0059, with respect to Figure 5, regarding that for each magnetic marker 5, the laying position coordinates (Xn, Yn) and azimuth are recorded, where the route is defined by the positions of the magnetic markers 5, as described in ¶0086).
Claim 10
Yamamoto discloses the claimed control method for causing a vehicle to automatically travel by using magnetic markers disposed in a route, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Nagao et al. (translation of CN 112041909 A), hereinafter Nagao.
Claim 8
Yamamoto does not further disclose that the database includes a database for each vehicle type of the vehicle and, on the database for the each vehicle type, the position data of the discrete points varied for the each vehicle type is recorded, and the system is configured, when the vehicle detects the magnetic marker, by referring to the database corresponding to a vehicle type to which the vehicle belongs, to adjust, for the each vehicle type, a target route when the vehicle travels. However, it would be obvious to provide lateral offsets to the route defined by the magnetic markers of Yamamoto for controlling the vehicle based on a vehicle type, in light of Nagao.
Specifically, Nagao teaches a database for each vehicle type of controlled vehicle 5 (similar to the vehicle taught by Yamamoto) and, on the database for the each vehicle type, guide line 137, defined as comprising guide markers 101 arranged at 50cm intervals in ¶0090, with respect to Figure 8 (similar to the position data of the discrete points taught by Yamamoto) varied for each vehicle type is recorded (see ¶0123-0125, regarding that entry trajectory 139 is a deviation from guide line 137 that is calculated by referring to the vehicle DB 185V that defines body size, front and rear overhangs and other specifications of the controlled vehicle 5; Figure 14, depicting different guidelines for different “types” of vehicle, e.g., guide line 137 corresponds to the standard parking trajectory of a mid-sized passenger car, as described in ¶0090). Nagao further teaches that when vehicle 5 detects magnetic marker 10 (similar to the magnetic marker taught by Yamamoto), by referring to the database corresponding to a vehicle type to which the vehicle belongs, to adjust, for the each vehicle type, a target route when the vehicle travels (see ¶0090, with respect to Figure 8, depicting magnetic marker 10 at the end of the transfer path corresponding to the beginning of guide line 137, where the guide line is included with the transfer path selected in step S101, as described in ¶0119, and vehicle 5 is controlled to travel along entry trajectory 139, which is a deviation from guide line 137 that is calculated by referring to vehicle DB 185V that defines body size, front and rear overhangs and other specifications of controlled vehicle 5, as described in ¶0123-0125).
Since the systems of Yamamoto and Nagao are directed to the same purpose, i.e. controlling a vehicle using detected magnetic markers with respect to a route, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the database of Yamamoto to include a database for each vehicle type of the vehicle and, on the database for the each vehicle type, the position data of the discrete points varied for the each vehicle type is recorded, such that the system of Yamamoto is further configured, when the vehicle detects the magnetic marker, by referring to the database corresponding to a vehicle type to which the vehicle belongs, to adjust, for the each vehicle type, a target route when the vehicle travels, in light of Nagao, with the predictable result of incorporating important control parameters that pertain to a particular type of vehicle, e.g., vehicle dimensions (¶0111 of Nagao), that influence movement of the vehicle along arc-shaped paths (¶0124 of Nagao).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto.
Claim 9
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose that the system is configured that a marker flag indicating whether the marker position data is linked is linked to the position data of the discrete points recorded on the database and, by referring to the marker flag, the system is configured to determine whether the marker position data is linked to the position data of the discrete point. However, claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, recites “marker position data…is recorded as linked to the position data of the discrete points.” There are no limitations that indicate scenarios in which the marker position data is not linked to the position data of the discrete points; therefore, the “marker flag” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as inherent to each linked marker position data and position data of discrete points in Yamamoto. Due to the issues discussed in the objection of claim 9 above, the broadest reasonable interpretation has been applied.
In case this feature cannot be considered inherently taught by Yamamoto, it would be obvious to modify the marker position data that is linked to the position data of the discrete data points of Yamamoto to further incorporate a “marker flag,” indicating the linkage, in light of ¶0067 of Yamamoto.
Specifically, Yamamoto teaches the known technique of using a marker flag indicating whether the marker position data is linked (see ¶0067, with respect to Figure 5, regarding the means of flag data corresponding to the open circle as indicating the “linked” azimuth identification section). While the “marker flag” of Yamamoto is used for indicating that the marker position data is linked to azimuth identification section, not “position data of the discrete point,” it is the technique of using marker flags to indicate whether the marker position data is linked that is modified by ¶0067 of Yamamoto; therefore, the particular type of linked data does not influence this combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Yamamoto to be configured that a marker flag indicating whether the marker position data is linked is linked to the position data of the discrete points recorded on the database and, by referring to the marker flag, the system is configured to determine whether the marker position data is linked to the position data of the discrete point, in light of ¶0067 of Yamamoto, with the predictable result of being able to distinguish the magnetic marker data as being associated with additional data (¶0067 of Yamamoto) using common programming methods.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 6, 11, and 13-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 2, the closest prior art of record, Yamamoto and Nagao, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the first positioning circuit identifies the laying position of the magnetic marker corresponding to the marker position data by positionally shifting from a discrete point regarding the position data to which the marker position data is linked by the relative position indicated by the marker position data recorded on the database and determines whether the laying position belongs to the prescribed range, and can thereby identify the magnetic marker positioned in the prescribed range, in light of the overall claim.
Specifically, Yamamoto teaches the “relative position” as corresponding directly to a position of the discrete points, due to the magnetic markers defining the route. While adjusting the route in response to the detection of a magnetic marker would be obvious, e.g., see Nagao applied in the rejection of claim 8, no reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach identifying the position of the magnetic marker by positionally shifting from a discrete point regarding the position data to which the marker position data is linked by the relative position indicated by the marker position data recorded on the database and determines whether the laying position belongs to the prescribed range, and can thereby identify the magnetic marker positioned in the prescribed range, as claimed.
Claims 11, 13, and 15 incorporate the allowable subject matter of claim 2 by dependency.
With respect to claims 5 and 14, the closest prior art of record, Yamamoto, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the vehicle is provided with a first sensor that obtains a physical amount that can identify an amount of revolution of a wheel and a second sensor that obtains a rotational angular velocity of the vehicle about an axis in a vertical direction, the control circuit is configured to estimate a displacement of the vehicle in a traveling direction by using the amount of revolution of the wheel and estimate a displacement of the vehicle in a vehicle-width direction by using the amount of revolution of the wheel and the rotational angular velocity of the vehicle, and an enlargement ratio when the control circuit enlarges the size of the prescribed range in accordance with the traveling distance is different between the traveling direction and the vehicle-width direction, and the enlargement ratio in the vehicle-width direction is set larger, in light of the overall claim.
Specifically, no reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach this claimed feature in light of the overall claim. See the objections of claims 5, 13, and 14 regarding grammatical issues with this limitation.
Claims 6 and 16 incorporate the allowable subject matter of claims 5 and 14, respectively, by dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Yamamoto et al. (US 2020/0012294 A1) teaches generating a database of position data representing the laying position of magnetic markers by combining absolute position detected by a GPS module and lateral shift amount acquired from a sensor unit (see ¶0065-0066), Berkovich et al. (US 11,536,571 B2) teaches determining vehicle position based on magnetic map information and parameters of vehicle motion (see abstract), Leefer (US 11,604,476 B1) teaches vehicle navigation using a magnetic sensor array in addition to an optical sensor (see col. 9, lines 20-34), and Alofs et al. (US 6,092,010) teaches automatically controlling a vehicle along a predefined guidepath using location markers positioned on a floor and differential X, Y-coordinates from a path point database (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661