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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a mobile body position determining unit that determines…”, “a mobile body control unit that controls…”, “a route setting unit that sets…” and “a malfunction detecting unit…determines” in claim 1 (and all claims that depend therefrom.
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 corresponding structure for each of the units is a processor as described in paragraph [0040] and Fig. 7.
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 § 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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (US 2024/704054) in view of Leone et al. (US 2019006393).
With respect to claim 1, Aso teaches a mobile body control system (see at least Abstract and ¶[0033]-[0034], comprising: a mobile body position determining unit that determines a current position of a mobile body that runs along a route in a predetermined area of a floor surface (see at least ¶ [0041]-[0044] and [0059]); a mobile body control unit that controls a behavior of the mobile body on the basis of the determined current position of the mobile body (see at least ¶[0041]-[0044] and [0059]); a route setting unit that sets the route as data (see at least ¶[0041]-[0044], [0059] and [0094]); and a malfunction detecting unit; wherein the mobile body position determining unit (a) acquires a partial floor surface image generated when a floor surface part at the current position of the mobile body is scanned by the mobile body, (b) determines a position of the partial floor surface image in a floor image of the whole predetermined area, and (c) on the basis of the determined position, determines the current position of the mobile body (see at least ¶[0078]-[0081] and [0083]; the mobile body control unit determines an error between a predetermined route set by the route setting unit and the current position of the mobile body, and causes the mobile body to run so as to reduce the error (see at least ¶ [0080] and [0083]). While Aso teaches the determination that an abnormality exists plural times, it is determined that the abnormality is with the conveyance vehicle, Aso does not specifically teach that the malfunction detecting unit determines whether malfunction occurs on a running system in the mobile body or not on the basis of an occurrence frequency of the error larger than a predetermined threshold value; or that if it is determined that malfunction occurs on a running system in the mobile body, the mobile body control unit derives a correction amount corresponding to the malfunction, and continuously corrects a behavior of the running system of the mobile body with the derived correction amount. However, such matter is taught by Leone et al. (see at least ¶[0047], [0054]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to include the system of Leone et al. that teaches a detection of an error (misalignment) in the running system of a vehicle (wheels) based on a positional divergence and attempts to correct the error with the system of Aso going to detecting an abnormality in a vehicle (which could include the wheels) as both systems are directed to detecting and diagnosing positional errors of autonomous vehicles as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of the system of Leone et al. and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Aso to more specifically determine an abnormality with the wheels of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 3, Aso does not specifically teach wherein if the correction amount exceeds a predetermined threshold value, the malfunction detecting unit notifies of the malfunction or stops running of the mobile body. However, such matter is taught by Leone et al. (see at least ¶[0047], [0054]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to include the system of Leone et al. that teaches a detection of an error (misalignment) in the running system of a vehicle (wheels) based on a positional divergence and attempts to correct the error with the system of Aso going to detecting an abnormality in a vehicle (which could include the wheels) as both systems are directed to detecting and diagnosing positional errors of autonomous vehicles as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of the system of Leone et al. and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Aso to more specifically determine an abnormality with the wheels of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 4, Aso teaches a management server; wherein the management server comprises a communication device, the mobile body position determining unit, the mobile body control unit, the route setting unit, and the malfunction detecting unit; wherein the mobile body position determining unit acquires the partial floor surface image using the communication device; and the mobile body control unit transmits an operation instruction based on the determined current position of the mobile body to the mobile body using the communication device and thereby control a behavior of the mobile body (see at least ¶[0051] and Fig. 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI whose telephone number is (313)446-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 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, JAMES TRAMMELL can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3666A
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights