DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1 and 2 have been examined in this application. This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM). 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
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.
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 limitations are:
(a) “an oscillating mechanism” for performing oscillating motion, in Claim 1,
(b) “a control unit” to execute control, in Claim 1,
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “mechanism” or “unit” 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 ¶0016, 0024, 0025 and Figure 2 establish that the oscillating mechanism is rotation mechanism 13, which corresponds to an ECU, sensor, and actuator,
(b) specification ¶0024, 0027 establish that the control unit corresponds to the 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 and 2 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 Claim 1, the terms “oscillating motion,” “oscillating state,” and “non-oscillating state” render the claim indefinite. The definition of oscillate is generally “to swing backward and forward like a pendulum” or “to move or travel back and forth between two points.” However, the oscillating motion in the claim is stated to be in the “same direction” as a turn, i.e. defined by a single direction and not a back and forth motion. Upon review of the disclosure for clarity (see e.g. the progression of (a) through (e) in Figure 3), the oscillating motion and oscillating state appears to merely be a rotation of the top plate to a particular angle, while the non-oscillating state is a state where the stop plate faces a direction aligned with the chassis (however, no formal definition of any of the terms is provided). Based on the difference between the ordinary meaning of the claims and the disclosure, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the terms are interpreted as any rotating motion and the states are any particular angles or ranges or directions of rotation.
Additionally, regarding Claim 1, the phrase “performing oscillating motion of moving around a vertical axis with reference to the traveling unit” renders the claim indefinite. Particularly, it is not clear what the “performing oscillating motion” comprises. The motion is stated to be moving around a vertical axis with reference to the traveling unit, but it is not stated whether the motion is of the entire second unit, or the top plate, or some other component of the mobile body, or something else entirely. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the performing of oscillating motion is interpreted as any rotation of a robot part.
Claim 2 is 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 2, the limitation “perform oscillating motion up to a position where a front surface of the second unit directly faces the destination at a maximum” renders the claim indefinite. Particularly, it is not clear what the “front surface” of the second unit refers to, as the second unit comprises both the top plate and oscillating mechanism, and “front” may be a relative term to the direction of travel or any other arbitrary axis. Additionally, it is not clear what “at a maximum” is referring to, and whether this is stating a limitation of the range of motion of the “oscillation” or alternatively whether “destination at a maximum” is referring to something else such as distance or destination position or something else. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as rotation of a part of the robot such that a portion of the part faces the destination.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent U.S. 11,372,408 B1 (Webster et al.) in view of Published Application US2025/0196558A1 (Choi 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 part of an oscillating mechanism (see Figure 2, processor 108 and/or actuator controller 142, and 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 control unit (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 to bring the second unit into an oscillating state (see 24:23-26, orient the movable component to target points such as 132(1) or 132(2) and see Figure 6, movable component panned in direction of upcoming turn to the right), and to perform oscillating motion in an opposite direction before changing from turning movement to straight movement (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) to cause the second unit to return from the oscillating state to a non-oscillating state (as the movable component moves between right orientation and left orientation, it will pass through a point of being straight (non-oscillating)).
Webster et al. does not explicitly recite the entirety of:
an oscillating mechanism.
Examiner’s note: the oscillating mechanism interpreted under 112(f) and being an ECU, sensor, and actuator, while Webster et al. only discloses the ECU and actuator, see the mapping above.
However, Choi et al. teaches a robot with rotatable component (see [0201] rotatable display of upper functional module), comprising:
a sensor ([0271] upper plate motor sensor 535 may measure a rotation angle of the display of the interaction upper functional module 700, or alternatively [0249] upper plate motor being servo motor i.e. motor and sensor combination).
Therefore, 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 moving components of the display of Webster et al. to include sensors for measuring angle as taught by Choi et al., such that the robot includes the entire mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of ensuring positioning accuracy (see Choi et al., [0249]).
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, left or right turn), 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 movable component to target points, and see Figure 6, e.g. movable component panned right for right turn), the control unit 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 the destination at a maximum (see 24:23-26, orient movable component to target points, i.e. not beyond pointing at target point (which may be a destination on the path per Figure 6 such as 132(1) or (2))).
Conclusion
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