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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 12/13/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
3. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
4. 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.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations in 1 are:
A network map generator
A success rate calculator
A driving path determiner
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
6. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The disclosure does not describe the claimed functions of “a network map generator configured to divide a space into grids, and measure network latency for each grid to generate a network map with an assigned latency level for each grid,” “a success rate calculator configured to calculate a success rate by repeated driving on a path in a grid assigned a specific latency level in the network map,” and “a driving path determiner configured to determine a driving path on the network map based on the assigned latency level and the calculated success rate,” which is critical or essential to the practice of the invention. The omitted subject matter is critical to one of ordinary skill in the art to know what specific computer components may accomplish the claimed functionality. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-10, have been included based on its dependency.
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.
7. Claim 1 limitation includes “a network map generator configured to divide a space into grids, and measure network latency for each grid to generate a network map with an assigned latency level for each grid; a success rate calculator configured to calculate a success rate by repeated driving on a path in a grid assigned a specific latency level in the network map; and a driving path determiner configured to determine a driving path on the network map based on the assigned latency level and the calculated success rate,” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A network map generator, success rate calculator, and driving path determiner are being interpreted, under the broadest reasonable internation, as a processor for generating a latency-based driving map.
8. The disclosure does not explicitly define the structure of the network map generator, success rate calculator, and driving path determiner. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
9. Claims 8-9 and 18-19 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 9 and 19, have been included based on its dependency.
10. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the robot" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 has the same limitation (Line 5) as Claim 8 except for its dependency and is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
11. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of Claim 11 (see MPEP §2106.03):
As a method, the claim is directed to a statutory category (Step 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 is directed to a method that measures network latency for a grid to generate a network map, calculate a success rate though repeated driving with a grid, and select a driving path with a priority associated with it. This limitation akin to a mental process as a human mind can make observations that an area may experience network latency based on previous trips of the robot/autonomous vehicle. The human can select a route for the robot/autonomous vehicle that avoids this area that has previously experienced network latency (Step 2A, Prong 1).
The Applicant does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The Applicant has recited a claim in which determines network latency and sets a driving path based on the locations with network latency (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claim does not provide an inventive concept and the claim recites no additional elements (e.g., providing actual control of the robot based on the set driving path priorities). Accordingly, the lack of additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no meaningful limits imposed on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP §2106.05(I)(a)) (Step 2B).
In conclusion, Claim 11 is directed toward non-subject matter eligible material and is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu
(US 20220196425 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 20220196416 A1).
16. Regarding Claim 1, Xu teaches a latency-based robot driving map generation apparatus, comprising (Xu: [0052]):
A network map generator configured to divide a space into grids, and measure network latency for each grid to generate a network map with an assigned latency level for each grid (Xu: [0052] and [0066]),
And a driving path determiner configured to determine a driving path on the network map based on the assigned latency level and the calculated success rate (Xu: [0060] and [0116]).
Xu fails to explicitly teach a success rate calculator configured to calculate a success rate by repeated driving on a path in a grid assigned a specific latency level in the network map. However, Xu teaches in [0115] that historical wireless performance data is used to determine a revised route to avoid the wireless performance failing to be above a level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to calculate a success rate by repeated driving on a path in a grid assigned a specific latency level in the network map as similarly shown in Xu's [0115] use of historical performance data to avoid path segments at particular times. This provides the benefit of ensuring the vehicle will not fail to enable the driver assistance, which requires a threshold level of network performance.
Additionally, Suzuki teaches a success rate calculator configured to calculate a success rate by repeated driving on a path in a grid assigned a specific latency level in the network map (Suzuki: [0041] Note that Fig. 3 is a grid map of a path that identifies areas associated with ubiquitous events stored in database 204 with a solid circle. Each ubiquitous event is equivalent to a grid with a calculated success rate by repeated driving on the path.).
Xu and Suzuki are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle navigation maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki to calculate a success rate by repeated driving on a path in a grid because it provides the benefit of determining areas in a map that reduce the performance of an autonomous vehicle. Determining these areas provides the additional benefit of generating a route to a destination that avoids the reduced performance areas (ubiquitous area). Xu and Suzuki both generate a map that identify areas where the performance of the autonomous vehicle operation is reduced.
17. Regarding Claim 2, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Xu fails to explicitly teach the latency level, as a first level when the network latency is equal to or greater than a first criterion, a second level when the network latency is less than the first criterion and equal to or greater than a second criterion, and a third level when the network latency is less than the second criterion and equal to or greater than a third criterion, and the first to third criteria vary depending on a service operation status of a driving robot. However, Xu teaches in [0053] that the scores are determined based on a plurality of threshold criterion. In the specific example, the network speed is used. Xu explains that the score can be based on the network performance that includes the latency. Note that the first criterion is equivalent to the score of a 1, the second criterion is equivalent to the score greater than 1 (e.g., 3), and the third criterion is equivalent to a score greater than the second criterion (e.g., 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to determine a first, second, and third level based on the network latency as similarly shown in Xu's [0053] use of the network speed at different thresholds to score each segment. This provides the benefit of calculating a score for the segment based on multiple network performance parameters to determine a route that satisfies the network performance thresholds.
18. Regarding Claim 3, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Xu teaches the driving path determiner excludes from the driving path any grid assigned the first latency level (Xu: [0091], [0112], and [0116] Note that excluding the segments with a congested route is equivalent to excluding from the driving path any grid assigns the first latency level because Xu avoid the segments with the reduction in network performance.).
19. Regarding Claim 4, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Xu teaches the success rate calculator accumulates a statistical value through repeated driving operations for grids assigned the second level or the third level and calculates the success rates for each grid based on the accumulated statistical value (Xu: [0115] Note that the historical performance data is equivalent to the accumulated statistical data through repeated driving operations. Also, note that the predicted performance data for the path segments at specific times is equivalent to calculating the success rates for each grid because a route that fails to enable the preferred driving assistance features is considered unsuccessful.).
20. Regarding Claim 5, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Xu teaches the driving path determiner sets a driving path selection priority proportional to the calculated success rates for each grid on the network map and determines the driving path based on the driving path selection priority (Xu: [0093] and [0115] Note that the increased wireless performance to enable driving assistance features is equivalent to having a higher driving path selection priority.).
21. Regarding Claim 6, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Xu teaches the driving path determiner updates the network map and a driving path preset on the network map by reflecting the driving path selection priorities for each grid calculated in real time (Xu: [0093] and [0116]).
22. Regarding Claim 7, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Suzuki teaches the driving path determiner excludes from the driving path any grid with a success rate of 50% or less (Suzuki: [0041] and [0061] It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to exclude a grid with a success rate of 50% or less absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well by excluding a grid with any success rate to determine the driving path. Suzuki teaches that ubiquitous events are likely override would be repeated many times at the time/location. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, this is equivalent to a grid with a success rate of 50% or less because the grid with the likelihood of override is considered unsuccessful (a successful route does not involve overriding the vehicle control).).
23. Regarding Claim 10, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Suzuki teaches when a specific router shuts down, the network map generator assigns the first latency level to the grids within a certain radius of the shutdown router’s location (Xu: [0053] Note that the wireless performance data being unknown or available is equivalent to the specific router shutting down and the grid being assigned a first latency level.).
24. Regarding Claim 11, Xu teaches a latency-based robot driving map generation method, comprising (Xu: [0052]):
Dividing a space into grids, and measuring network latency for each grid to generate a network map with assigned latency levels using a network map generator (Xu: [0052] and [0066]),
And setting driving path selection priorities for each grid based on the latency level and the calculated success rate and determining a driving path on the network map based on the driving path selection priority, using a driving path determiner (Xu: [0060] and [0116]).
Xu fails to explicitly teach calculating a success rate through repeated driving on a path within a grid to which a specific latency level is assigned in the network map using a success rate calculator. However, Xu teaches in [0115] that historical wireless performance data is used to determine a revised route to avoid the wireless performance failing to be above a level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to calculate a success rate by repeated driving on a path in a grid assigned a specific latency level in the network map as similarly shown in Xu's [0115] use of historical performance data to avoid path segments at particular times. This provides the benefit of ensuring the vehicle will not fail to enable the driver assistance, which requires a threshold level of network performance.
Additionally, Suzuki teaches calculating a success rate through repeated driving on a path within a grid to which a specific latency level is assigned in the network map using a success rate calculator (Suzuki: [0041] Note that Fig. 3 is a grid map of a path that identifies areas associated with ubiquitous events stored in database 204 with a solid circle. Each ubiquitous event is equivalent to a grid with a calculated success rate by repeated driving on the path.).
Xu and Suzuki are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle navigation maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki to calculate a success rate by repeated driving on a path in a grid because it provides the benefit of determining areas in a map that reduce the performance of an autonomous vehicle. Determining these areas provides the additional benefit of generating a route to a destination that avoids the reduced performance areas (ubiquitous area). Xu and Suzuki both generate a map that identify areas where the performance of the autonomous vehicle operation is reduced.
25. Regarding Claim 12, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Xu teaches receiving an initial network map for the space through a control center and measuring the network latency for each grid on the initial network map using the network map generator (Xu: [0045], [0046], and [0059]).
26. Regarding Claim 13, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Xu fails to explicitly teach to determine the latency level as a first level when the network latency is equal to or greater than a first criterion, a second level when the network latency is less than the first criterion and equal to or greater than a second criterion, and a third level when the network latency is less than the second criterion and equal to or greater than a third criterion, and the first to third criteria vary depending on a service operation status of a driving robot. However, Xu teaches in [0053] that the scores are determined based on a plurality of threshold criterion. In the specific example, the network speed is used. Xu explains that the score can be based on the network performance that includes the latency. Note that the first criterion is equivalent to the score of a 1, the second criterion is equivalent to the score greater than 1 (e.g., 3), and the third criterion is equivalent to a score greater than the second criterion (e.g., 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to determine a first, second, and third level based on the network latency as similarly shown in Xu's [0053] use of the network speed at different thresholds to score each segment. This provides the benefit of calculating a score for the segment based on multiple network performance parameters to determine a route that satisfies the network performance thresholds.
27. Regarding Claim 14, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Xu teaches the calculating of the success rate includes using the success rate calculator to: accumulate statistical value through repeated driving operations for grids assigned the second or third latency level and calculate the success rates for each grid based on the accumulated statistical value (Xu: [0115] Note that the historical performance data is equivalent to the accumulated statistical data through repeated driving operations. Also, note that the predicted performance data for the path segments at specific times is equivalent to calculating the success rates for each grid because a route that fails to enable the preferred driving assistance features is considered unsuccessful.).
28. Regarding Claim 15, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Xu teaches the determining of the driving path includes using the driving path determiner to: exclude any grid assigned the first latency level from the driving path (Xu: [0091], [0112], and [0116] Note that excluding the segments with a congested route is equivalent to excluding from the driving path any grid assigns the first latency level because Xu avoid the segments with the reduction in network performance.).
29. Regarding Claim 16, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Xu teaches the determining of the driving path includes using the driving path determiner to: update the network map and a driving path preset on the network map in real time by reflecting the driving path selection priorities for each grid proportional to the success rate (Xu: [0115] Note that the historical performance data is equivalent to the accumulated statistical data through repeated driving operations. Also, note that the predicted performance data for the path segments at specific times is equivalent to calculating the success rates for each grid because a route that fails to enable the preferred driving assistance features is considered unsuccessful.).
30. Regarding Claim 17, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Suzuki teaches the determining of the driving path further includes using the driving path determiner to: exclude from the driving path any specific grids with a success rate of 50% or less (Suzuki: [0041] and [0061] It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to exclude a grid with a success rate of 50% or less absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well by excluding a grid with any success rate to determine the driving path. Suzuki teaches that ubiquitous events are likely override would be repeated many times at the time/location. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, this is equivalent to a grid with a success rate of 50% or less because the grid with the likelihood of override is considered unsuccessful (a successful route does not involve overriding the vehicle control).).
31. Regarding Claim 20, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Suzuki teaches when a specific router shuts down, the generating of the network map further includes using the network map generator to: determine the first latency level to the grids within a certain radius of the shutdown router's location (Xu: [0053] Note that the wireless performance data being unknown or available is equivalent to the specific router shutting down and the grid being assigned a first latency level.).
32. Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu
(US 20220196425 A1), in view of Suzuki (US 20220196416 A1), and in further view of Li (CN 113885402 A).
33. Regarding Claim 8, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 5.
Xu and Suzuki fail to explicitly teach when an abnormality is detected in a specific router, the network map generator reduces an operating speed of the robot measuring the network latency for grids within a certain radius from a location of the specific router.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches when an abnormality is detected in a specific router, the network map generator reduces an operating speed of the robot measuring the network latency for grids within a certain radius from a location of the specific router (Li: [Page 5, Lines 6-9], [Page 6, Lines, 19-21], and [Page 7, Lines 37-40]).
Xu, Suzuki, and Li are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu and Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Li to reduce the operating speed of the robot when an abnormality is detected in a specific router because it provides the benefit of improving the safety of the remote-controlled vehicle based on the network signal.
34. Regarding Claim 9, Xu, Suzuki, and Li remain as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Xu teaches the driving path determiner reduces the driving path selection priority set for grids within the certain radius from the location of the specific router to a certain level (Xu: [0093] and [0116] Note that Xu determines the driving path priority based on bandwidth in this specific example. Additionally, the other network performance data (including latency) may be used as explained in [0052].).
35. Regarding Claim 18, Xu and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 5.
Xu and Suzuki fail to explicitly teach when an abnormality is detected in a specific router, the generating of the network map includes using the driving path determiner to: reduce an operating speed of the robot measuring the network latency for grids within a certain radius from a location of the specific router.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches when an abnormality is detected in a specific router, the generating of the network map includes using the driving path determiner to: reduce an operating speed of the robot measuring the network latency for grids within a certain radius from a location of the specific router (Li: [Page 5, Lines 6-9], [Page 6, Lines, 19-21], and [Page 7, Lines 37-40]).
Xu, Suzuki, and Li are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu and Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Li to reduce the operating speed of the robot when an abnormality is detected in a specific router because it provides the benefit of improving the safety of the remote-controlled vehicle based on the network signal.
36. Regarding Claim 19, Xu, Suzuki, and Li remain as applied above in Claim 18, and further, Xu teaches the determining of the driving path includes using the driving path determiner to: reduce the driving path selection priority set for grids within the certain radius from the location of a specific router to a certain level (Xu: [0093] and [0116] Note that Xu determines the driving path priority based on bandwidth in this specific example. Additionally, the other network performance data (including latency) may be used as explained in [0052].).
Conclusion
37. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bhupatiraju (US 20250274203 A1)
Capello (US 20220150148 A1)
He (US 20180283882 A1)
Sasaki (US 20210003407 A1)
38. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights