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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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: an acquisition unit, a generation unit, a transmission unit, a reception unit, a driving control unit, a detection unit, and an execution unit in claims 1-12.
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 limitations an acquisition unit, a generation unit, a transmission unit, a detection unit, and an execution unit will be interpreted as the processor 201 as disclosed in Paragraph 0057. The limitations a reception unit, a driving control unit will be interpreted as the processor 311 as disclosed in Paragraph 0064.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With respect to claim 4, the applicant claims the control device comprising a driving control unit. However, the specification discloses a driving control unit 311 as part of the equipment control device 310 (Paragraph 0064) and not part of the control device claimed in claim 4. Accordingly, the limitation the control device comprising a driving control unit is not supported in the specification.
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 3, 4, and 7 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.
With respect to claim 3, the applicant claims or describes the work equipment. However, the invention is directed to a control device that generates a control signal for controlling a work equipment and not the work equipment itself. Accordingly, it is not clear to the examiner how claim 3 related to the control device. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim limitation “a driving control unit” in claim 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected dependent claim 3 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As recited above, claim 3 further describes the work equipment and do not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, i.e. the control device. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) acquiring an individual information regarding an attribute of a moving object and generating a control signal for controlling a work equipment.
The limitations of acquiring an individual information regarding an attribute of a moving object and generating a control signal for controlling a work equipment, as drafted, is a process 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 “an acquisition unit and a generation unit, i.e. a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “unit” language, acquiring an individual information regarding an attribute of a moving object in the context of this claim encompasses a user visually monitoring an object, which is a mental step. Similarly, the limitation of generating a control signal for controlling a work equipment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “unit” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking of an action that needs to be done. 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 recites “an acquisition unit and a generation unit, i.e. a processor” to perform the recited functions. The units, i.e. processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of acquiring and generating) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not 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(s) does/do 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, the additional element of using a processor to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 2 recites an additional element of a transmission unit. As recited above, the transmission unit is part of the processor and is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Claims 3-4 are directed to the work equipment and is not part of the control device and is treated as an object that is being acted upon. Claims 5-7 recite additional steps that can be performed mentally and fall under the mental process bucket of abstract ideas and claim 7 recites additional steps performed by the work equipment which is not part of the control device. Claim 8 recites the additional steps of execute at least one of a process of decelerating the moving object, a process of changing a movement route of the moving object, and a process of notifying occurrence of an abnormality, when the state of the work equipment does not change according to the control signal. With respect to the additional limitation of notifying occurrence of an abnormality, the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a processor to perform the process. The notifying step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the weather evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of notifying occurrence of an abnormality is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao CN 11655458 A (Liao was submitted by the applicant in IDS on 04/30/2025 with an English translation upon which the examiner is relying, hence Liao).
In re claims 1 and 13, Liao discloses an unattended automatic car washing device (Abstract), and teaches the following:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire an individual information regarding an attribute of a moving object that moves to a work place by unmanned driving (Page 10, Paragraph 0018 “the car wash controller is communicatively connected with the car wash channel”, and Paragraph 0021 “the car wash controller obtains the license plate information of the vehicle”);
and a generation unit configured to generate a control signal according to the individual information, wherein the control signal is a signal for controlling a work equipment provided in the work place (Page 13, Paragraph 0015 “the car wash controller controls the car wash gantry” and Paragraph 0037 “the car wash controller starts the car wash gantry”)
and controlling the work equipment using the control signal (Page 13, Paragraph 0015 “the car wash controller controls the car wash gantry” and Paragraph 0037 “the car wash controller starts the car wash gantry”)
In re claim 2, Liao teaches the following:
a transmission unit configured to transmit the control signal to the work equipment (Page 10, Paragraph 0018 “the car wash controller is communicatively connected with the car wash channel”)
In re claim 3, Liao teaches the following:
wherein the work equipment comprises: an actuator; a reception unit configured to receive the control signal transmitted from the transmission unit; and a driving control unit configured to drive the actuator using the control signal received by the reception unit (Page 10, Paragraph 0018, and Page 12, Paragraph 0012)
In re claim 4, Liao teaches the following:
a driving control unit configured to drive an actuator of the work equipment using the control signal (Page 12, Paragraph 0012)
In re claim 10, Liao teaches the following:
wherein the work equipment is equipment that sprays a liquid onto the moving object, and the generation unit generates the control signal for adjusting a spray starting position of the liquid with respect to the moving object (Page 5 “water source”)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao.
In re claims 5, 6, and 7, Liao discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly recite a first and second moving object and a first and second control signal.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to control more than one vehicle especially that Liao discloses detecting vehicle model, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 8-9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Palazzolo US 2021/0188321 A1 (hence Palazzolo).
In re claim 8, Liao discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a detection unit configured to detect a state of the work equipment; and an execution unit configured to execute at least one of a process of decelerating the moving object, a process of changing a movement route of the moving object, and a process of notifying occurrence of an abnormality, when the state of the work equipment does not change according to the control signal
Nevertheless, Palazzolo discloses a system for autonomously moving and aligning a vehicle with respect to an object fixed to a traveling surface in front of the vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a detection unit configured to detect a state of the work equipment; and an execution unit configured to execute at least one of a process of decelerating the moving object, a process of changing a movement route of the moving object, and a process of notifying occurrence of an abnormality, when the state of the work equipment does not change according to the control signal (Fig.3, and Paragraph 0021)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the reference to include the drive system of the vehicle, as taught by Palazzolo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to autonomously maneuvering the vehicle into engagement with the conveyor structure, such that no attendant is needed and driver misalignment errors are eliminated (Palazzolo, Paragraph 0021)
In re claim 9, Palazzolo teaches the following:
wherein the work equipment is equipment having a pair of guide rails that adjust a traveling direction of the moving object, the individual information includes information regarding a width of the moving object, and the generation unit generates the control signal for adjusting at least one of a gap and an angle between the pair of guide rails (Fig.1, #24, #26, and Paragraph 0013)
In re claim 11, Palazzolo teaches the following:
wherein the moving object is a vehicle, the work equipment is equipment that adjusts a wheel alignment of the moving object, and the generation unit generates the control signal for adjusting a standby position of the work equipment (Fig.1, #24, #26, and Paragraph 0013)
In re claim 12, Palazzolo teaches the following:
wherein the work equipment is equipment that emits an electromagnetic wave onto the moving object, and the generation unit generates the control signal for adjusting a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave (Paragraph 0029)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Konishi et al US 2025/0339870 A1 discloses a work site and a method for managing the work site including an input data acquisition unit that acquires condition input data from an input device; and a water-sprinkling condition decision unit that decides, based on the condition input data, a water-sprinkling condition of an unmanned water-sprinkling vehicle at a work place where an unmanned haul vehicle travels.
Ichizuri US 2025/0251741 A1 discloses an unmanned vehicle management system includes a first unmanned vehicle including a target position sensor that detects a relative position with respect to a loader, a second unmanned vehicle including a dump body onto which a load is loaded by the loader, and a management device that manages travel of each of the first unmanned vehicle and the second unmanned vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights