DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-4 have been examined in this application. Claims 1 and 2 are amended. Claims 3 and 4 are new. This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 6/30/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP2023-181967 filed in Japan on 10/23/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The amendments to the title, filed 4/28/2026, are acceptable and the objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/28/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the specification objection (presented on p. 5), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim interpretation under 112(f) (presented on p. 6), the remarks are acknowledged. Based on the amendments, the term “oscillating mechanism” has been removed and no longer invokes 112(f), however “controller” as a substitute for “control unit” is still a generic placeholder and therefore invokes 112(f). The office suggests reciting in the claim the structural modifier “electronic” or preferably using the term “electronic control unit” for consistency with the specification if the intention is not to have claim terms invoke 112(f).
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 6-9), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 9-12), the arguments are partially persuasive. The arguments (p. 10) state that the prior art does not determine the oscillating direction based on a calculated line from the robot’s current position to an intersection point of the travel route boundary. The arguments cite Webster et al. using of a time interval, but do not provide any reasoned arguments with respect to Webster et al. at 5:47-50 which recites the target point being at a specified distance from the robot. The arguments (p. 10) further state that the prior art does not make any determination regarding the line being parallel to the travel route within the range. However, the office submits that the determination of relative bearing 406 reads on this limitation (as best understood in view of new issues under 112(b), see below). No reasoned arguments have been provided regarding these portions of Webster et al. A relative bearing of 0° means that the two lines are parallel, whereas any non-zero angle is a non-parallel relationship. The arguments (p. 11) state that Webster et al. does not perform oscillating motion “that is specifically timed” to return to a non-oscillating state before the vehicle transitions from turning to straight movement. However, the claims do not recite any specific time parameters. The claim only recites performing of oscillating motion in an opposite direction “before” changing from turning movement to straight movement, with the intended use “to cause the second unit to return from the oscillating state to a non-oscillating state.” The office maintains that Webster et al. discloses the claimed behavior because looking ahead at a target point with a specified distance from the robot on a path with turns both left and right (e.g. as seeing in Figure 6) will result in the oscillating motion returning toward a straight-forward position before the robot reaches a straight portion of movement. For example, when the robot continues along the path in Figure 6 and reaches the position approximately where 132(1) is shown, and controls oscillation to look at a future target point (such as 132(2) or (3)), this necessitates a return of the oscillating motion toward the left, as opposed to the oscillating motion toward the right as shown when the robot is in its starting position in Figure 6. Additionally, the office submits that because Webster et al. discloses controlling of the oscillation in the same manner as the claimed invention (use of an intersection point on the route ahead) the control result would be the same for any hypothetical route or combination of curved and straight path portions. The arguments (p. 11-12) further recite the distance intervals, however this particular technique of determining the target point is not relied upon in the current rejection and the arguments are therefore moot, as are the arguments about Choi as Choi is not relied upon in the present rejections based on the amendments. In view of the complete amendments the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the previously relied upon prior art of Patent U.S. 11,372,408 B1 (Webster et al.).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “a current position” should instead read “a current position of the autonomous mobile body” for clarity.
In Claim 2, “an oscillating state” should instead read “the oscillating state”
In Claim 2, “at a maximum” is redundant with “without rotating beyond a direction…” and should be removed for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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. Such claim limitation is:
(a) “a controller” to execute control, and determine whether the line is parallel, and cause the second unit to perform oscillating, in Claim 1.
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “controller” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) specification ¶0024, 0027 establish that the controller corresponds to an electronic control unit (ECU).
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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, the determination of whether the line connecting the current position and the intersection “is parallel to the travel route within the range” renders the claims indefinite. Particularly it is not clear how the direction of the travel route is established in order to be compared to the line. For example, it is unclear if the direction of the travel route is being evaluated at every instantaneous position inside the range (such as by determining a tangent line for a number of points along the route) and any of these directions could be parallel to the line (which does not appear to be the case in view of the disclosure, e.g. Figure 3b where one point of the travel route is parallel with the line but the second unit is in the oscillated state), or alternatively whether the travel route direction is some average or approximated direction through the range (which does not appear to be the case as a straight line from the current position to where the route intersects the range would always be parallel to the line), or whether the determination of whether the line is parallel to the route requires the route within the range to be a straight line, or something else. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the direction of the travel route inside the range is understood to be the current traveling direction of the robot.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 3, the terms “a range,” “a current position,” “a direction of a line,” and “an intersection” render the claim indefinite. Based on the use of “a” or “an” instead of “the,” it is not clear whether these terms are intended to be the same as those presented in Claim 1, or alternatively whether the terms are intended to introduce a second or different range, position, direction, line, and intersection. Additionally, Claim 3 uses the term “a boundary” as opposed to “a predetermined boundary” which was recited in Claim 1, which appears to be a different term when all of the other previously recited terms appeared to be the same. It is generally unclear how Claim 3 further limits Claim 1 and whether it merely adds the functions of setting of the range, or something else. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the terms are understood to be the same as those recited in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, the terms “a line,” “a current position,” and “a range” render the claim indefinite. Based on the use of “a” or “an” instead of “the,” it is not clear whether these terms are intended to be the same as those presented in Claim 1, or alternatively whether the terms are intended to introduce a second or different line, position, and range. Additionally, Claim 4 uses the term “a boundary” as opposed to “a predetermined boundary” which was recited in Claim 1, which appears to be a different term when all of the other previously recited terms appeared to be the same. It is generally unclear how Claim 4 further limits Claim 1. For the purposes of examination, terms are understood to be the same as those recited in Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patent U.S. 11,372,408 B1 (Webster et al.)
Regarding Claim 1, Webster et al. discloses an autonomous mobile body (see Figure 1, 8, and 3:57-4:9, robot 104 with autonomous navigation) comprising:
a traveling unit including a drive wheel (see Figure 8, 12:15-17, “drive the motors connected to the wheels”) and a chassis (see 4:43 “chassis of the robot”) and configured to move straight and turn and move in a left and right (see Figure 6, 5:35-36, curves in both directions and straight line);
a second unit disposed at an upper portion of the traveling unit and including a top plate (see Figures 8, 9, top bezel of movable component 138 being a plate (ordinarily defined as a smooth flat thin piece of material)) and an oscillating actuator (see Figure 3, movable component actuator 392) for performing oscillating motion of moving around a vertical axis with reference to the traveling unit (see Figure 8, 25:15-23, movable component moved via actuator for panning); and
a controller (see Figure 2, processor 108 and/or actuator controller 142) configured to, upon causing the autonomous mobile body to move to a destination (see Figures 6, 7, upon moving planned travel path 126 (any point on the path or at the end of the path being a destination)), when the autonomous mobile body turns and moves in either a left direction or a right direction (see Figure 6, any of curved portions of path 126), execute control to cause the second unit to perform oscillating motion in the same direction (see 24:23-26, orient the movable component to target points 132, and see Figure 6, movable component panned in direction of upcoming turn to the right) up to a direction of a line connecting a current position and an intersection of a travel route and a predetermined boundary of a range centered on the current position to bring the second unit into an oscillating state (see 5:47-50, target point can be point along the line of travel and is a specified distance (boundary of a range) from the robot 104, see also e.g. Figure 4, target line 404), and to perform oscillating motion in an opposite direction before changing from turning movement to straight movement to cause the second unit to return from the oscillating state to a non-oscillating state (see Figure 6, 24:23-26, orient the movable component to target points ahead, i.e. as robot approaches the inflection point between the right turn and subsequent left turn (inflection point being a point of straight travel), the movable component will be oriented to the path ahead, i.e. turned to left),
wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether the line connecting the current position and the intersection is parallel to the travel route within the range (see Figure 7, 24:65-25:3 determine relative bearing between chassis centerline (route within the range) and target line (line connecting to target point) i.e. a determination of zero relative bearing is a determination of parallel lines), and to cause the second unit to perform oscillating motion when the line is not parallel to the travel route within the range (see 25:4-23 at 710 rotate movable component by second angle which is lesser of relative bearing and maximum panning angle (i.e. oscillating motion / rotation of second unit when angle is not zero)).
Regarding Claim 2, Webster et al. discloses the autonomous mobile body according to claim 1, wherein when the autonomous mobile body turns and moves in either the left direction or the right direction (see Figure 6, any of curved portions of path 126), upon causing the second unit to perform oscillating motion in the same direction to bring the second unit into an oscillating state (see 24:23-26, orient the movable component to target points 132, and see Figure 6, movable component panned in direction of upcoming turn to the right), the controller executes control to cause the second unit to perform oscillating motion up to a position where a front surface of the second unit directly faces toward the destination without rotating beyond a direction directly facing the destination at a maximum (see 25:4-23 at 710 rotate movable component by second angle which is lesser of relative bearing and maximum panning angle (i.e. faces directly to target point when angle does not exceed the maximum panning angle (target point as a destination on the path per Figure 6 such as 132(1) or (2)).
Regarding Claim 3, Webster et al. discloses the autonomous mobile body according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to set a range centered on a current position of the autonomous mobile body (see 5:47-50, specified distance from robot), and to cause the second unit to perform oscillating motion up to a direction of a line connecting the current position and an intersection of the travel route and a boundary of the range (see Figure 7, 24:65-25:23, at 706 through 710, rotate movable component to direction of relative bearing (i.e. to face target line connecting robot to target point 132 (intersection)).
Regarding Claim 4, Webster et al. discloses the autonomous mobile body according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether a line connecting a current position of the autonomous mobile body and an intersection of the travel route and a boundary of a range centered on the current position is parallel to the travel route within the range (see Figure 7, 24:65-25:3 determine relative bearing between chassis centerline (route within the range) and target line (line connecting to target point) i.e. a determination of zero relative bearing is a determination of parallel lines), and to cause the second unit to perform oscillating motion when the line is not parallel to the travel route within the range (see 25:4-23 at 710 rotate movable component by second angle which is lesser of relative bearing and maximum panning angle (i.e. oscillating motion / rotation of second unit when angle is not zero)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights