DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is reply to the Application Number 18/975,330 filed on 05/26/2026.
Claims 1 – 7 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1 – 5 have been amended. Claims 6 and 7 are new.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordbruch et al. (US 20170320529 A1), further in view of Fang et al. (US 20210192867 A1), Wakita et al. (CN 108347432 A) and Yen et al. (US 12454274 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Nordbruch teaches a control device configured to control a mobile body that travels through unmanned driving, and (Nordbruch: Abstract: “A method for operating a vehicle, the vehicle driving autonomously or remotely controlled within a manufacturing system for manufacturing vehicles.”)
to communicate with the mobile body to control travel of the mobile body through the unmanned driving and to inspect the mobile body via an identical line, the control device comprising: (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0027: “it is provided that the driving operation of the vehicle is monitored and/or documented at least partially, in particular completely, with the aid of a vehicle-external monitoring system… In particular, it is, for example, possible to retrace errors or malfunctions which occurred during the driving operation. The monitoring yields the technical advantage in particular that in the case of an error or a malfunction of the vehicle, it is possible to intervene directly and immediately before any damage may occur.”; Paragraph 0028: “According to one specific embodiment, it is provided that vehicle-internal vehicle data, which are generated during the driving operation, are monitored and/or documented.”; Paragraph 0042: “it is provided that one or multiple remote-control instruction(s) or control instruction(s) for remotely controlled driving is/are received by the vehicle, the vehicle driving correspondingly remotely controlled in response to the remote-control instruction(s) (also referred to as control instruction(s)). The receiving may also be carried out via the communication network, for example.”)
a processor; and
a memory storing (Nordbruch: Claim 26: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program including program code for operating a vehicle, the program code, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform: one of autonomously driving by the vehicle, or the vehicle driving via remote control, wherein the vehicle drives autonomously or remotely controlled within a manufacturing system for manufacturing vehicles.”)
first information includes information indicating a first inspection performed on the mobile body on a scheduled travel route of the mobile body in association with information indicating a first location along the travel route where the first inspection is performed, (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0040: “target position data for one or multiple target(s) which the vehicle is supposed to drive to autonomously. A target of this type is, for example, a position or a location of an assembly station, a test facility, or an end of the assembly line or a parking facility or a parking position in a parking facility.”; Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there. In a step 303, it is then provided that the vehicle drives to another test facility where one or multiple test(s) is/are also carried out on the vehicle.”; Paragraph 0066: “the present invention in particular and, inter alia, provides a technical concept in which a valet parking functionality, i.e., an automatic parking functionality, may be used for supporting the production or manufacturing process in the course of the production at a manufacturer (also referred to as OEM, OEM standing for original equipment manufacturer). In this way, it is advantageously possible to test and/or validate in parallel this valet parking functionality in addition to the completion of manufacture.”,
Supplemental Note: a scheduled test for the valet parking functionality is performed in a manufacturing system. The target states the various testing location the vehicle has to travel to within the manufacturing system)
… executable instructions that cause the processor to:
acquire position information that indicates a current position of the mobile body; (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0040: “The data which are relevant for the autonomous driving operation are, for example, the following data, individually or in combination: map data from a digital map, position data about one or multiple stationary object(s) which is/are located within the manufacturing system, position data about one or multiple mobile object (s) which is/are located within the manufacturing system,”)
determine whether the first location has been reached based on whether the acquired position information matches the first location and, in response to a determination that the mobile body has reached the first location, (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there. In a step 303, it is then provided that the vehicle drives to another test facility where one or multiple test(s) is/are also carried out on the vehicle.”)
the processor then determines whether to cause the mobile body to continue travel through the unmanned driving, (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 305, it is subsequently provided that the vehicle drives to a parking position in a parking facility of the manufacturing system.”)
… the processor determines to cause the mobile body to continue travel through the unmanned driving (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0061: “In a step 303, it is then provided that the vehicle drives to another test facility where one or multiple test(s) is/are also carried out on the vehicle. According to a step 305, it is subsequently provided that the vehicle drives to a parking position in a parking facility of the manufacturing system.”; Paragraph 0065: “in particular that within the scope of its manufacture the vehicle drives autonomously within the parking facility or drives remotely controlled within the manufacturing system.”)
… generate a travel control signal that sets a travel speed and steering angle of the mobile body and transmits the generated travel control signal to the mobile body to control the unmanned driving of the mobile body based on the travel speed and the steering angle indicated by the travel control signal (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0061: “In a step 303, it is then provided that the vehicle drives to another test facility where one or multiple test(s) is/are also carried out on the vehicle. According to a step 305, it is subsequently provided that the vehicle drives to a parking position in a parking facility of the manufacturing system.”; Paragraph 0065: “in particular that within the scope of its manufacture the vehicle drives autonomously within the parking facility or drives remotely controlled within the manufacturing system.”).
In sum, Nordbruch teaches a control device configured to control a mobile body that travels through unmanned driving, and to communicate with the mobile body to control travel of the mobile body through the unmanned driving and to inspect the mobile body via an identical line, the control device comprising: a processor; and a memory storing first information includes information indicating a first inspection performed on the mobile body on a scheduled travel route of the mobile body in association with information indicating a first location along the travel route where the first inspection is performed, executable instructions that cause the processor to: acquire position information that indicates a current position of the mobile body; determine whether the first location has been reached based on whether the acquired position information matches the first location and, in response to a determination that the mobile body has reached the first location, the processor then determines whether to cause the mobile body to continue travel through the unmanned driving, the processor determines to cause the mobile body to continue travel through the unmanned driving generate a travel control signal that sets a travel speed and steering angle of the mobile body and transmits the generated travel control signal to the mobile body to control the unmanned driving of the mobile body based on the travel speed and the steering angle indicated by the travel control signal. Nordbruch however does not teach second information that indicates a communication load in communication for the first inspection and that is associated with the first inspection.
Fang teaches second information that indicates a communication load in communication for the first inspection and that is associated with the first inspection, and (Fang: Abstract: “For example, higher capability pathing or operation algorithms related to the vehicle, increasing automation of vehicle functions, increasing demand for prognostic determinations and/or maintenance support, and increasing media streams (both the number of media streams and the quality of those media streams) all drive for increased demand in data rates, stored data amounts, and the number of entities or applications accessing the stored data.”; Paragraph 0224: “Accordingly, wherever the present disclosure references a vehicle, a vehicle system, a mobile application, industrial equipment, robotic system, and/or manufacturing systems, each one of these are also contemplated herein, and may be applicable in certain embodiments, ”; Paragraph 0545: “In certain embodiments, the vehicle data type 4508 provides an indication of the value of the data based on resolution (e.g., loss of data resolution—such as in bit depth, precision, and/or time resolution such as sampling rate and/or synchronization data matching—may have a higher utility cost for certain data types such as control data, and a lower cost for certain data types such as monitoring data)… In certain embodiments, value descriptions for collected vehicle data 2722, including loss of value determinations, may be weighted according to the amount of data, the number of parameters in the data, and/or the data type (and/or data types) represented in the data—for example a 50 kb block of data may have less weighted value than a similar 100 kb block of data (e.g., having a similar priority value expressed in the vehicle policy data value 2710 and/or a similar data type or mix of data types). ”,
Supplemental Note: the amount of vehicle data to send is determined based on the required task).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Nordbruch with the teachings of Fang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the ability to determine how much vehicle data is being sent on a manufacturing line as taught by Fang in combination with manufacturing system of Nordbruch as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Both Fang and Nordbruch teach the ability to collect vehicle data which is to be evaluated. Fang teaches collecting and communicating the vehicle data by using a COST function and priority values, thus increasing the efficiency in which the data is being sent (Fang: Paragraph 0016; Paragraph 0020). Fang teaches to utilize this technique to mitigate risks of the mobile data to be collected by a malicious source with access to the data (Fang: Paragraph 0010) and reduce the complexity of communicating large amounts of vehicle data (Fang: Paragraph 0011). Combining Fang’s system with Nordbruch allows for the manufacturing system of Nordbruch to also have these improvements. For example, Nordbruch teaches collecting the vehicle data per the testing facilities, thus in combination with Fang, communicating the sensitive testing data would now mitigate malicious data breaching attacks. This combination also reduces large amounts of vehicle data to be communicated, thus improving efficiency in which data is communicated. Nordbruch in view of Fang however still do not teach wherein the processor determines to not cause the mobile body to continue travel through the unmanned driving.
Yen teaches wherein the processor determines to not cause the mobile body to continue travel through the unmanned driving (Yen: Col. 16, lines 46 – 50: “The present disclosure relates to systems, methods, and computer program products that provide for robust fault tolerant architecture and methodology. The fault tolerant architecture may be directed to, but not limited to, safety critical autonomous vehicle applications.”: Col. 16, line 67 – Col. 17, line 4: “A permanent fault may require the autonomous vehicle to stop operating, to operate at reduced capability, to attempt to safely pull over, or to otherwise be addressed before continuing operation or operation within normal operating parameters.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Nordbruch with the teachings of Yen with a reasonable expectation of success. Nordbruch teaches the ability of autonomously or remotely controlling vehicles of a manufacturing line to take them from various testing facilities. Nordbruch also teaches a system of detecting errors and intervene with the vehicle prior to any damage occurring per the error (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0027). Nordbruch however does not teach controlling to stop the vehicle when these errors are found which is taught by Yen. Yen also teaches controlling autonomous vehicles and is able to detect any faults which may stop the autonomous function of the vehicle all together. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this method of Yen with the vehicle system of Nordbruch as a form of intervening with the vehicle prior to any damages occurring. For example, if there are communication errors or errors within the testing facilities, the ability to stop the autonomous function of the vehicle can restrict the vehicle from causing any other damage to the testing facilities, surrounding objects and personnel. Nordbruch in view of Yen however still do not teach when the second information that indicates the communication load for the first inspection is equal to or greater than or less than a predetermined load value.
Wakita teaches when the second information that indicates the communication load for the first inspection is equal to or greater than a predetermined load value, and (Wakita: lines 342 – 347: “in the step of the functional verification, in order to shorten the needed time of all necessary inspection, can be performed in parallel with each other without affecting the detection. for example, in the irradiation angle of the headlamp device verification process and the braking device of the working process, can be respectively independently at the same time. However, simultaneously carrying out multiple inspection process in this case, sometimes the communication load of the communication device increases than usual.”; lines 374 – 378: “if said order executing function verification process, then ECU10 will not be in the function verification step of the transmission period to be shortened due to the increase in the processing load of detecting the condition as abnormal state, thereby stopping,”,
Supplemental Note: depending on the communication load putting the communication system in an abnormal state, the verification step is either stopped or not)
… when the second information that indicates the communication load for the first inspection is less than the predetermined load value, and (Wakita: lines 342 – 347: “in the step of the functional verification, in order to shorten the needed time of all necessary inspection, can be performed in parallel with each other without affecting the detection. for example, in the irradiation angle of the headlamp device verification process and the braking device of the working process, can be respectively independently at the same time. However, simultaneously carrying out multiple inspection process in this case, sometimes the communication load of the communication device increases than usual.”; lines 374 – 378: “if said order executing function verification process, then ECU10 will not be in the function verification step of the transmission period to be shortened due to the increase in the processing load of detecting the condition as abnormal state, thereby stopping,”,
Supplemental Note: depending on the communication load putting the communication system in an abnormal state, the verification step is either stopped or not).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Nordbruch with the teachings of Wakita with a reasonable expectation of success. Wakita teaches the ability to access the communication requirement of a vehicle based on a security policy. Wakita teaches this function to be used in vehicle manufacturing where the system can determine an abnormal state of processing data based on an increase of communication load. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this function of Wakita with the vehicle manufacturing system of Nordbruch. Nordbruch teaches autonomously driving or remotely controlled vehicles which travel along a manufacturing line to various testing facilities. The communication interface is in contact with these multiple vehicles (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0036). The ability of detecting an increased communication load causing an abnormal state, as taught by Wakita, when combined with Nordbruch will allow the manufacturing system to detect these situations as errors in which the system is able to intervene and make any corresponding changes. Due to the sensitivity of manufacturing vehicles and the amount of tests being performed on these vehicles, determining an abnormal state of the communication interface can help mitigate situations in which information is not properly delivered or received between the manufacturing system and vehicle. This is especially prevalent if the vehicles are remotely controlled and the operator inputs are buffered or not sending entirely to the vehicle which can cause additional damage to the testing facilities, obstacles or personnel.
Regarding claim 2, Nordbruch, as modified, teaches wherein the executable instructions further cause the processer to specify a second inspection to be performed after the first inspection based on the position information and the first information; and (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there.”; Paragraph 0040: “target position data for one or multiple target(s) which the vehicle is supposed to drive to autonomously. A target of this type is, for example, a position or a location of an assembly station, a test facility,”; Paragraph 0044: “This following yields in particular that the vehicle is able to move to one or multiple target position(s). This therefore means that the vehicle is able to reach or reaches the one or the multiple target position(s) by following the signals.”)
determine not to cause the mobile body to travel through the unmanned driving (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0025: “The vehicle drives autonomously or remotely controlled to the one test facility or to the multiple test facilities.”; Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there. In a step 303, it is then provided that the vehicle drives to another test facility where one or multiple test(s) is/are also carried out on the vehicle. According to a step 305, it is subsequently provided that the vehicle drives to a parking position in a parking facility of the manufacturing system.”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicles travel to the various facilities to perform various tests. The vehicle is taught to travel from and to testing facilities, not within the facilities).
In sum, Nordbruch teaches wherein the executable instructions further cause the processer to specify a second inspection to be performed after the first inspection based on the position information and the first information; and determine not to cause the mobile body to travel through the unmanned driving. Nordbruch however does not teach when the communication load in executing the second inspection meets a condition determined in advance based on the second inspection and the second information.
Fang teaches when the communication load in executing the second inspection meets a condition determined in advance based on the second inspection and the second information (Fang: Abstract: “For example, higher capability pathing or operation algorithms related to the vehicle, increasing automation of vehicle functions, increasing demand for prognostic determinations and/or maintenance support, and increasing media streams (both the number of media streams and the quality of those media streams) all drive for increased demand in data rates, stored data amounts, and the number of entities or applications accessing the stored data.”; Paragraph 0224: “Accordingly, wherever the present disclosure references a vehicle, a vehicle system, a mobile application, industrial equipment, robotic system, and/or manufacturing systems, each one of these are also contemplated herein, and may be applicable in certain embodiments, ”; Paragraph 0020: “The parameter storage circuit is further structured to determine the reserved memory amount in response to a priority value associated with the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes an on-vehicle data storage priority. The priority value includes a transmission priority. The priority value includes a priority associated with an end point providing the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes a priority associated with an end point requesting the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes a priority associated with an entity requesting the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes a priority associated with an application requesting the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes a priority associated with an application associated with an end point requesting the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes a priority associated with a flow requesting the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes a priority associated with a flow associated with an end point requesting the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. ”,
Supplemental Note: the priority values for the acquired vehicle data differs depending on the entity and application used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Nordbruch with the teachings of Fang with a reasonable expectation of success. As states for claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the ability to determine how much vehicle data is being sent on a manufacturing line as taught by Fang in combination with manufacturing system of Nordbruch as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Both Fang and Nordbruch teach the ability to collect vehicle data which is to be evaluated. Fang teaches collecting and communicating the vehicle data by using a COST function and priority values, thus increasing the efficiency in which the data is being sent (Fang: Paragraph 0016; Paragraph 0020). Fang teaches to utilize this technique to mitigate risks of the mobile data to be collected by a malicious source with access to the data (Fang: Paragraph 0010) and reduce the complexity of communicating large amounts of vehicle data (Fang: Paragraph 0011). Combining Fang’s system with Nordbruch allows for the manufacturing system of Nordbruch to also have these improvements. For example, Nordbruch teaches collecting the vehicle data per the testing facilities, thus in combination with Fang, communicating the sensitive testing data from these multiple facilities would now mitigate malicious data breaching attacks. This combination also reduces large amounts of vehicle data to be communicated, thus improving efficiency in which data is communicated. Furthermore, Fang’s ability to determine the priority of how the vehicle data is stored and then communicated would be obvious to try to implement with the manufacturing system of Nordbruch by one of ordinary skill in the art. This combination would improve the efficiency in which the testing data of Nordbruch is stored and communicated as, for example, different testing facilities can have different vehicle data parameters they would like to prioritize. Communicating and storing those corresponding parameters increases the efficiency in which the tests are performed as a priority can be made to those vehicle parameters while mitigating other vehicle data not required for a particular test.
Regarding claim 3, Nordbruch, as modified, teaches wherein:
the second information further includes information indicating whether travel of the mobile body is required for the first inspection; and (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there.”; Paragraph 0040: “target position data for one or multiple target(s) which the vehicle is supposed to drive to autonomously. A target of this type is, for example, a position or a location of an assembly station, a test facility,”; Paragraph 0044: “This following yields in particular that the vehicle is able to move to one or multiple target position(s). This therefore means that the vehicle is able to reach or reaches the one or the multiple target position(s) by following the signals.”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle is to travel along the test facility based on multiple targets associated with different vehicle tests to perform)
executable instructions further cause the processor to
specify a second inspection to be performed after the first inspection based on the position information and the first information, (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0066: “the present invention in particular and, inter alia, provides a technical concept in which a valet parking functionality, i.e., an automatic parking functionality, may be used for supporting the production or manufacturing process in the course of the production at a manufacturer (also referred to as OEM, OEM standing for original equipment manufacturer). In this way, it is advantageously possible to test and/or validate in parallel this valet parking functionality in addition to the completion of manufacture.”; Paragraph 0025: “the vehicle drives to one or multiple test facility(ies) for the purpose of one or multiple vehicle test(s) being carried out… The vehicle drives autonomously or remotely controlled to the one test facility or to the multiple test facilities.”; Paragraph 0026: “According to one specific embodiment, the one test facility or the multiple test facilities is/are designed to carry out at least one or multiple of the following test(s): Dent test, paint test, lighting test of a vehicle lighting.”,
Supplemental Note: multiple tests are done within a testing facility in which the valet parking functionality is also tested at the end. The vehicle is controlled to travel to these targets which perform the tests)
determine, based on the second information, whether travel of the mobile body is enabled for the second inspection, and
when the second inspection requires travel of the mobile body,
cause the mobile body to travel through the unmanned driving, and (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0025: “the vehicle drives to one or multiple test facility(ies) for the purpose of one or multiple vehicle test(s) being carried out… The vehicle drives autonomously or remotely controlled to the one test facility or to the multiple test facilities.”; Paragraph 0026: “According to one specific embodiment, the one test facility or the multiple test facilities is/are designed to carry out at least one or multiple of the following test(s): Dent test, paint test, lighting test of a vehicle lighting.”)
determine to perform only an inspection item that requires travel based on the second information, among a plurality of inspection items included in the second inspection (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there. In a step 303, it is then provided that the vehicle drives to another test facility where one or multiple test(s) is/are also carried out on the vehicle.”: Paragraph 0074: “According to one specific embodiment, it is provided that certain stops for additional actions are made on the way from the end of the conveyor belt, i.e., from the end of the assembly line to the parking facility; this means that the vehicle stops at one or multiple test facility(ies). For example, the tests may be selected randomly. One test may, for example, be a dent test or a paint test. Multiple tests are carried out in particular.”,
Supplemental Note: the tests are placed within the facility, the vehicle is travel to which ever test is specified at the time).
Regarding claim 4, Nordbruch, as modified, teaches wherein:
the second information further includes information that indicates a process to be preferentially performed, among execution of the first inspection and movement of the mobile body; and (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0023: “it is provided that the manufacturing system includes an assembly line for vehicle manufacturing and a parking facility, the vehicle driving to the parking facility at the end of the assembly line and parking in the parking facility… it is possible to check directly and immediately after the completion of the vehicle whether the vehicle has correctly implemented an AVP (automatic valet parking) function. This therefore means that it is possible to check or that it is checked whether the AVP functionality of the vehicle is operational. In particular, thanks to the autonomous or remotely controlled driving from the end of the assembly line to the parking facility,”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle to perform the AVP testing after the completion of the vehicle is interpreted as process to be preferentially performed)
the executable instructions further cause the processor to
specify a second inspection to be performed after the first inspection based on the position information and the first information, (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0023: “it is provided that the manufacturing system includes an assembly line for vehicle manufacturing and a parking facility, the vehicle driving to the parking facility at the end of the assembly line and parking in the parking facility… it is possible to check directly and immediately after the completion of the vehicle whether the vehicle has correctly implemented an AVP (automatic valet parking) function. This therefore means that it is possible to check or that it is checked whether the AVP functionality of the vehicle is operational. In particular, thanks to the autonomous or remotely controlled driving from the end of the assembly line to the parking facility,”,
Supplemental Note: in this example, after the completion of the vehicle at the end of an assembly line, the vehicle is specified travel to the parking facility for AVP testing)
when it is determined to perform the second inspection in preference to the movement of the mobile body, perform the second inspection without causing the mobile body to travel, and
when it is determined to perform the movement of the mobile body in preference to the execution of the second inspection, cause the mobile body to travel, (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0025: “it is provided that during its driving operation, the vehicle drives to one or multiple test facility(ies) for the purpose of one or multiple vehicle test(s) being carried out… The vehicle drives autonomously or remotely controlled to the one test facility or to the multiple test facilities.”; Paragraph 0026: “According to one specific embodiment, the one test facility or the multiple test facilities is/are designed to carry out at least one or multiple of the following test(s): Dent test, paint test, lighting test of a vehicle lighting.”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle travel to different testing facilities. The vehicle is not taught to travel within these testing facilities)
stop communication for controlling travel of the mobile body when the mobile body arrives at a destination, and thereafter perform the inspection (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there. In a step 303, it is then provided that the vehicle drives to another test facility where one or multiple test(s) is/are also carried out on the vehicle. According to a step 305, it is subsequently provided that the vehicle drives to a parking position in a parking facility of the manufacturing system.”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicles travel to the various facilities to perform various tests. The vehicle is taught to travel from and to testing facilities).
Regarding claim 6, Nordbruch, as modified, teaches wherein a travel control signal causes a vehicle control processor to control one or more actuators of the mobile body to travel at the travel speed and apply the steering angle indicated by the travel control signal (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0015: “autonomously means in particular that the vehicle navigates or drives autonomously, i.e., without a driver's intervention, or is guided remotely controlled within the manufacturing system, in particular in a parking facility. The vehicle thus drives autonomously in the parking facility without a driver having to control the vehicle for this purpose. A guidance includes in particular a transverse guidance and/or a longitudinal guidance of the vehicle.”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle is able to be operated autonomously or through a remote control).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordbruch et al. (US 20170320529 A1), Fang et al. (US 20210192867 A1), Wakita et al. (CN 108347432 A) and Yen et al. (US 12454274 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okada et al. (US 11072346 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Nordbruch, as modified, does not teach wherein the executable instructions further cause the processor to notify a user that the mobile body is caused to travel through the unmanned driving in response to the processor determining to cause the mobile body to travel through the unmanned driving; or output a log that indicates that the determination unit has determined to cause the mobile body to travel through the unmanned driving when the determination unit makes such a decision.
Okada teaches wherein the executable instructions further cause the processor to
notify a user that the mobile body is caused to travel through the unmanned driving in response to the processor determining to cause the mobile body to travel through the unmanned driving; or
output a log that indicates that the determination unit has determined to cause the mobile body to travel through the unmanned driving when the determination unit makes such a decision (Okada: Col. 1, lines 57 – 62: “It is an object of the present disclosure to provide an autonomous driving system, an autonomous driving state notifying program, and an autonomous driving state notifying method that are capable of notifying whether autonomous driving is being performed according to a traveling plan to the driver to give the driver a sense of security.”; Col. 7, lines 16 – 23: “When the control unit 7 starts the autonomous driving state notifying process, the control unit 7 creates a traveling plan of autonomous driving (S1, corresponding to a traveling plan creation step). The control unit 7 determines whether determination timing which is previously set has come (S2) and determines whether an autonomous driving end condition is satisfied (S3).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Nordbruch with the teachings of Okada with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the notification system of Okada with the manufacturing system of Nordbruch. Nordbruch teaches the ability of the vehicles in a manufacturing plant to travel autonomously from various testing facilities and to perform an AVP function, thus the ability of the manufacturing system to know when the vehicle has started autonomous driving, as taught by Okada, increases the safety of the manufacturing system. For example, a vehicle may incorrectly start autonomous driving when it shouldn’t have which can now be alerted the manufacturing system that may control to stop the vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, Nordbruch, as modified, teaches wherein the position information includes further indicates an orientation of the mobile body (Nordbruch: Claims 18 – 20: “18. The method as recited in claim 14, wherein the driving operation of the vehicle is at least one of monitored and documented, at least partially, with the aid of a vehicle-external monitoring system. 19. The method as recited in claim 14, wherein vehicle-internal vehicle data, which are generated during the driving operation, are at least one of monitored and documented. 20. The method as recited in claim 14, wherein the vehicle receives data which are relevant for the autonomous driving operation and based on which the vehicle drives autonomously within the manufacturing system.”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle data corresponds to position and orientation data as it used for the autonomous or remotely controlled driving operation).
In sum, Nordbruch teaches the position information includes further indicates an orientation of the mobile body. Nordbruch however does not teach a global coordinate system of a facility.
Okada teaches in a global coordinate system of a facility (Okada: Col. 3, lines 42 – 51: “The locator device 3 includes a control unit 7, a GPS receiver 8, a gyro sensor 9, a G sensor 10, a road network data storage unit 11, and a detailed map data storage unit 12. The GPS receiver 8 receives GPS radio waves that are radiated from the GPS satellite and captured by a GPS roof antenna 13, calculates various parameters extracted from the GPS radio waves to identify the current position of the own vehicle as the own vehicle position, and outputs a position signal which indicates the identified own vehicle position to the control unit 7.”; “The control unit 7 corrects the own vehicle position indicated by the position signal input from the GPS receiver 8 using the angular velocity indicated by the angular velocity signal input from the gyro sensor 9 and the acceleration indicated by the acceleration signal input from the G sensor 10.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Nordbruch with the teachings of Okada with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Nordbruch and Okada teach a traveling autonomous vehicle. Nordbruch captures the vehicle data to be used for the driving operation as the vehicles travel from the different testing facilities while Okada similarly teaches the ability of gathering GPS signal to aid in identifying the vehicle position. The addition of GPS data to navigate the vehicle of Okada would be obvious to try to implement with the vehicles of Nordbruch to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, a GPS signal of the vehicles can be used as part of the vehicle data which improves the localization of the vehicle over its current embodiment. This improves the autonomous or remotely controlled driving of navigating the vehicles to their correct testing facilities within the manufacturing line.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section Response to Specification Objection of the REMARKS, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to specification objection of the title has been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objection of the title has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section Response to Claim Interpretation of the REMARKS, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to claim interpretation of claims 1 – 5 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation of claims 1 – 5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section Response to 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection of the REMARKS, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejections of claims 1, 2 and 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejections of claims 1, 2 and 5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section Response to 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection of the REMARKS, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art claim rejections of claims 1 – 5 have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive. Applicant states regarding the amendments to claim 1:
As is best understood, neither of D1 or D2 addresses determining "whether the first location has been reached based on whether the acquired position information matches the first location" and determining "in response to a determination that the mobile body has reached the first location, whether to cause the mobile body to continue travel through the unmanned driving". In particular, the teachings of D1 and D2 do no address causing "the mobile body to continue travel through the unmanned driving when the second information that indicates the communication load for the first inspection is equal to or greater than a predetermined load value", and both "caus[ing] the mobile body to continue travel through the unmanned driving when the second information that indicates the communication load for the first inspection is less than the predetermined load value" and "generat[ing] a travel control signal that sets a travel speed and steering angle of the mobile body and transmits the generated travel control signal to the mobile body to control the unmanned driving of the mobile body based on the travel speed and the steering angle indicated by the travel control signal". In view of the silence of D1 and D2 with regard to at least these features of amended claim 1, the Applicant submits that the subject matter of amended claim 1 is a distinction over the combined teachings of D1 and D2.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant must discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. The argument stated above merely states that neither of the previously used prior art of D1 (Nordbruch) nor D2 (Fang) teach the amended claim limitation without explaining how the prior arts differ. Regarding the amended limitation of “wherein the processor determines to not cause the mobile body to continue travel through the unmanned driving”, Examiner agrees that neither prior teaches this limitation and is now taught in view of Yen (US 12454274 B2). Regarding the amended limitation of “when the second information that indicates the communication load for the first inspection is equal to or greater [and “the first inspection is less”] than a predetermined load value” is taught in view of Wakita (CN 108347432 A).
Likewise, although the Office Action cites D3 for allegedly teaching "a notification unit that notifies a user that the mobile body is caused to travel through the unattended driving when the determination unit determines to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving" and "an output unit that outputs a log that indicates that the determination unit has determined to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving when the determination unit makes such a decision". However, as is best understood, the teachings of D3 also fail to address the features of causing "the mobile body to continue travel through the unmanned driving when the second information that indicates the communication load for the first inspection is equal to or greater than a predetermined load value", and both "caus[ing] the mobile body to continue travel through the unmanned driving when the second information that indicates the communication load for the first inspection is less than the predetermined load value" and "generat[ing] a travel control signal that sets a travel speed and steering angle of the mobile body and transmits the generated travel control signal to the mobile body to control the unmanned driving of the mobile body based on the travel speed and the steering angle indicated by the travel control signal". Accordingly, in view of the silence of D3 with regard to at least these features of amended claim 1, D3 fails to remedy the omissions in the teachings of D1 and D2 with regard to the subject matter of amended claim 1. In view of at least the omissions in the teachings of D1-D3 as discussed above, the Applicant submits that the subject matter of amended claim 1 is a distinction over the asserted combination of the cited art. A proper prima facie case of obviousness requires that the asserted combination of references teaches or suggests each and every element recited in the claims. Because at least one claimed element is not taught in the asserted combinations of D1-D3, the subject matter of amended claim 1 would not have been obvious over the cited art… With regard to new claims 6 and 7, the claims depend from independent claim 1 and, thus, include all of the features of amended claim 1. Accordingly, claims 6 and 7 would not have been obvious over the art of record for at least the same reasons as discussed with regard to amended claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the claim limitation of “a notification unit that notifies a user that the mobile body is caused to travel through the unattended driving when the determination unit determines to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving” and “an output unit that outputs a log that indicates that the determination unit has determined to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving when the determination unit makes such a decision”. Like above, the applicant must discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. Examiner does agree that D3 (Okada) does not teach the amended claim limitations which are taught by Nordbruch in view of Yen and Wakita. Please see section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103. Dependent claims 2 – 5 are still rejected per their dependency on rejected claim 1. Equally, the new claims 6 and 7 are also rejected per their dependency on rejected claim 1.
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 SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights