DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing September 16, 2024. Claims 1-16 are pending and are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to Japanese Patent No. JP 2023-166449, filed September 27, 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 9, the recitation “determining a position in front of or behind the target pedestrian in a moving direction of the target pedestrian as the stop position based on the type of the set area and other than the set area when the target pedestrian enters the set area which the mobile object is prohibited from entering” is vague and indefinite. As claimed, it is unclear how a stop position can be in front of pedestrian when a pedestrian enters a prohibited area, as required by claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends. It is therefore unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by High et al., US 20230391592 A1, hereinafter referred to as High.
As to claim 1, High discloses a control system for controlling a mobile object that is able to move autonomously in an area in which a pedestrian is able to move and moves to follow a target pedestrian, the control system comprising:
a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions; and
one or more processors connected to the storage medium, wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-readable instructions to perform:
recognizing an object near the target pedestrian and the mobile object (Object detection – See at least ¶79);
determining a stop position other than a set area which the mobile object is prohibited from entering as a stop position based on a type of the set area when the target pedestrian enters the set area (When customer enters prohibited area, motorized transport unit may wait – See at least ¶151); and
stopping following the target pedestrian and moving the mobile object to the determined stop position (When customer enters prohibited area, motorized transport unit may wait – See at least ¶151).
Independent claims 14-16 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences
As to claim 2, High discloses recognizing a type of the set area on the basis of a type of the recognized object or recognizing a type of the set area on the basis of a type of a set area which is correlated with a position of the mobile object in map information (Various mapped areas indicating whether given areas are accessible or inaccessible for the motorized transport unit – See at least ¶184).
As to claim 4, High discloses:
determining a position on an exit side of a facility in which a checkout counter is installed or a position of an exit of the checkout counter as the stop position when a target object indicating that the set area is a set area for the checkout counter is recognized and the set area is recognized as a set area for the checkout counter (Facility includes entrance/exit areas and checkout locations – See at least ¶31; Access restrictions can apply to checkout areas – See at least ¶188); and
moving the mobile object to the stop position (When customer enters prohibited area, motorized transport unit may wait – See at least ¶151).
As to claim 5, High discloses the target object is a checkout counter or a shopping cart (Facility includes entrance/exit areas and checkout locations – See at least ¶31)
As to claim 6, High discloses determining the stop position according to a time after the target pedestrian or the mobile object has entered a facility of the set area and until the target pedestrian enters the set area when the target pedestrian or the mobile object enters the set area (When customer enters prohibited area, motorized transport unit may wait – See at least ¶151; May include bathroom, i.e., a time at which a person enters a facility – See at least ¶188).
As to claim 9, High discloses determining a position in front of or behind the target pedestrian in a moving direction of the target pedestrian as the stop position based on the type of the set area and other than the set area when the target pedestrian enters the set area which the mobile object is prohibited from entering (When customer enters prohibited area, motorized transport unit may wait – See at least ¶151; Examiner notes when waiting after the target pedestrian enters the restricted area, the motorized transport unit is behind the target pedestrian.).
As to claim 10, High discloses:
determining a predetermined area before a toilet as the stop position when the set area is recognized as the toilet (When customer enters prohibited area, motorized transport unit may wait – See at least ¶151; May include bathroom – See at least ¶188); and
moving the mobile object to the stop position (When customer enters prohibited area, motorized transport unit may wait – See at least ¶151)
As to claim 11, High discloses the predetermined area before the toilet is an area outside of the toilet and within a predetermined range from an entrance of the toilet (When customer enters prohibited area, motorized transport unit may wait – See at least ¶151; May include bathroom – See at least ¶188; Examiner notes waiting implicitly includes a range so that the motorized transport unit can resume its operation after waiting.).
As to claim 12, High discloses causing the mobile object to restart following the target pedestrian when the target pedestrian exits the set area after the mobile object has stopped at the stop position with entering of the target pedestrian into the set area (When customer enters prohibited area, motorized transport unit may wait for pedestrian to leave prohibited area – See at least ¶151; Examiner notes waiting until the target pedestrian leaves the prohibited area implicitly includes resuming operation.).
As to claim 13, High discloses causing the mobile object not to enter the set area and to restart following the target pedestrian when the target pedestrian exits the set area after the mobile object has stopped at the stop position (When customer enters prohibited area, motorized transport unit may wait for pedestrian to leave prohibited area – See at least ¶151; Examiner notes waiting until the target pedestrian leaves the prohibited area implicitly includes resuming operation.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al., US 20230391592 A1, in view of Amer et al., US 20240160210 A1, hereinafter referred to as High, and Amer, respectively.
As to claim 3, High fails to explicitly disclose the stop position based on a type of the set area is a position in the vicinity of the set area at which another pedestrian is estimated not to be hindered from entering the set area.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of High and include the feature of the stop position based on a type of the set area is a position in the vicinity of the set area at which another pedestrian is estimated not to be hindered from entering the set area, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Amer teaches it is well-known and routine in the mobile robot shopping arts to control a mobile robot (like the mobile robot of High) in consideration of other shoppers (Control robotic cart in socially adaptable way, e.g., getting out of the way of other shoppers – See at least ¶45).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al., US 20230391592 A1, hereinafter referred to as High.
As to claim 7, High discloses determining a position farther from an entrance of a facility in which a counter is installed than the target pedestrian as the stop position when the set area is the counter of the facility, the target pedestrian enters a set area for the counter (Facility includes entrance/exit areas and checkout locations – See at least ¶31; Access restrictions can apply to checkout areas – See at least ¶188; Examiner notes when the motorized transport unit waits outside a restricted area it is necessarily farther from the restricted area than the person who has entered the restricted area).
High fails to explicitly disclose a predetermined first time does not elapse after the target pedestrian or the mobile object enters the facility. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of High and include the feature of a predetermined first time does not elapse after the target pedestrian or the mobile object enters the facility, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize that High’s waiting function would be inoperable with an indefinite time consideration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668