DETAILED ACTION
\The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 limitations are: “first control unit” in claims 1 and 4 and “second control unit” in claims 1-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-4 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.
Claims 1 recites the limitation “each other’s units” and “such that the units operate in conjunction with each other” in lines 10-11, respectively. It is unclear whether the units refer to the first and second control units or the upper unit and the traveling unit. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4 are rejected for being dependent upon previously rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 11,209,887 B1), in view of Harada (JP 2023112721 A), and further in view of Kiyosawa (US 2021/0008710 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches:
An autonomous mobile body (Fig. 1; [0029] “robot 104”) comprising:
a traveling unit (Fig. 1; [0029] “mobility subsystem 108”) including a drive wheel (Fig. 8 shows front view of robot 104 that includes wheels 802; [0182] “the wheels 802”) and a chassis and configured to travel straight forward and backward and turn left and right ([0046] “The autonomous movement module 140 of the mobility subsystem 108 may use sensor data from the one or more sensors 126 to ... control operation of the drive motors 144 to move the robot 104.”; [0086] “The navigational data may then be used to determine a path which is then subsequently used to determine a set of commands that drive the motors connected to the wheels.”);
an upper unit (Fig. 1; [0029] “application subsystem 106”) disposed at an upper portion of the traveling unit (Fig. 1 shows the arrangement of application subsystem 106 is above the mobility subsystem 108);
a first control unit (Fig. 1; [0045] “processors 136”) configured to control the traveling unit ([0045] “The autonomous movement module 140 may be implemented as one or more of dedicated hardware, instructions stored in the memory 138 and executed on one or more processors 136”); and
a second control unit (Fig. 1; [0041] “processors 120”) configured to control the upper unit ([0041] “The memory 130 may store one or more applications 132 that may be executed at least in part by the one or more processors 120. For example, the applications 132 may provide various functionality such as placing a video call, following the user 102 as they move, playing audio content, presenting video content, and so forth.”), wherein
the second control unit acquire information indicating motion states of each other's units ([0044] “During operation, the mobility subsystem 108 may provide mobility subsystem status data 146 to the application subsystem 106 or to the power management module 114, if the power management module 114 is external to the application subsystem 106. The mobility subsystem status data 146 may comprise information such as a charge status of the second battery 134, particular functions that the mobility subsystem 108 is being called upon to provide, speed of the movement of the robot 104, and so forth.”), and control the traveling unit and the upper unit such that the units operate in conjunction with each other based on the acquired information (Fig. 1 shows mobility system status data 146 is transmitted to the application subsystem 106 from mobility system 108, and control data for controlling operation of the mobility system 108 is transmitted to the mobility system 108 from the application system 106).
Jung does not specifically teach the upper unit including a vibration damping mechanism configured to damp a vibration caused by the straight traveling and the turning of the traveling unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Harada teaches an upper unit including a vibration damping mechanism configured to damp a vibration (Fig. 1; [0014] “ As transparently shown in FIG. 1, the neck unit 200 has a damping device 201 provided inside the housing. The damping device 201 is an example of a damping unit, and damps vibrations that occur in the mobile robot 1.”) caused by the straight traveling and the turning of the traveling unit ([0002] discloses vibrations caused by movement of the robot, which includes straight traveling and turning of the traveling unit).
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 teachings of Jung, to include a vibration damping mechanism configured to damp a vibration, as taught by Harada, in order to effectively reduce vibrations detected by sensors of the robot, thus improving detection accuracy of the sensors.
Neither Jung nor Harada teaches the first control unit acquires information indicating motion state of the upper unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kiyosawa teaches:
a first control unit configured to acquire information indicating motion of an upper unit ([0058] “That is, the first control circuit 15 and the second control circuit directly communicate, and thereby, mutually controls driving of the movable platform 10 and the manipulator 20.”; [0034] “The first control circuit 15 drives the first movement actuator 16-1 and the second movement actuator 16-2”; [0037] “The second control circuit 25 drives the plurality of actuators 26 and the end effector 29”).
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 first control unit of Jung, in view of Harada, to acquire information indicating motion state of an upper unit, as taught by Kiyosawa, in order to mutually controls driving of the traveling unit and the upper unit.
Regarding claim 2, Jung further teaches:
wherein the second control unit controls, when acquiring information indicating that the traveling unit is traveling ([0044] “During operation, the mobility subsystem 108 may provide mobility subsystem status data 146 to the application subsystem 106 or to the power management module 114, if the power management module 114 is external to the application subsystem 106. The mobility subsystem status data 146 may comprise information such as a charge status of the second battery 134, particular functions that the mobility subsystem 108 is being called upon to provide, speed of the movement of the robot 104, and so forth.”), the upper unit such that the upper unit operates in conjunction with the traveling unit based on the information on the traveling ([0059] “A movement module 212 is configured to operate in conjunction with the user interface module 208, the application(s) 132, and so forth to generate control data 148 comprising one or more instructions directing movement of the robot 104. The control data 148 is provided to the mobility subsystem 108 that directs the mobility subsystem 108 to move the robot 104.”).
Jung does not explicitly disclose information on the straight traveling.
However, Kiyosawa teaches acquiring information indicating that the traveling unit is traveling straight ([0035] “Further, the first movement actuator 16-1 and the second movement actuator 16-2 adjust balance of the rotation direction and the rotation velocity between the pair of wheels 12, and thereby, changes the orientation on the
X
p
-
Y
p
plane, i.e., an angle of traverse about the
Z
p
axis of the main body 11”; [0058] “That is, the first control circuit 15 and the second control circuit directly communicate, and thereby, mutually controls driving of the movable platform 10 and the manipulator 20.”).
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 teachings of Jung, in view of Harada, to acquire information indicating that the traveling unit is traveling straight, as taught by Kiyosawa, in order to mutually control driving of the traveling unit and the upper unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwanaga et al. (US 2024/0075628 A1) teaches a control unit of a mobile robot configured to acquire motion information of an upper body unit and a traveling unit ([0070]-[0071]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHI Q BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-3962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOI 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.
/NHI Q BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3656