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 .
Withdrawal of Previous Office Action
The preliminary amendment to the claims cancelling claim 1 and adding claims 2-21 was not noticed/was missing from the file when the previous office action was written. Hence the previous office action was written relying on erroneous information and is now withdrawn. Examiner was informed of the error within 1 month of the mailing date of the action.
710.06 Situations When Reply Period Is Reset or Restarted [R-01.2024]
Where an Office action contains an error that affects applicant’s ability to reply to the Office action and this error is called to the attention of the Office within 1 month of the mail date of the action, the Office will restart the previously set period for reply to run from the date the error is corrected, if requested to do so by applicant.
Claims
Claims 2-21 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: S824 is in Fig. 8b but is missing from the description of its activity in [0109].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract: The last sentence of the abstract needs to be rewritten for clarity.
[0004]: “…adjust the stop position of the mobility while moving.” should be “…adjust the stop position of the mobility vehicle while moving.”
[0010]: Paragraph ends with “…the control unit updates the stop position determined with respect to the predetermined target according to a motion of the mobile body to control the traveling of the mobile body to the stop position.” What does this mean? This should be rewritten for clarity.
[0034]: “…the user 130 rides the vehicle…” shouldn’t this be “…the user 130 boards the vehicle…”? Also: “…to allow the user to ride the vehicle.” should be “…to allow the user to board the vehicle.”
[0071]: “…since the user desires to ride in another location…” should be “…since the user desires to board at another location…”.
[0104]: “…otherwise advances the processing to S813.” should be “…otherwise (mark remains identifiable) advances the processing to S813.”,
[0109]: “The control unit 30 determines…” should be “In step S824, the control unit 30 determines…” Also “When determining that the distance…” should be “Upon determining that the distance…”
[0122]: contains the same ending as above in paragraph [0010]. Please rewrite for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims depend from canceled claim 1. The examiner will interpret the claim to depend from claim 2 for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required. A conversation with attorney Michael D’Aurelio 7/9/2026 confirmed the claims depend from claim 2.
(Claims 9-11 are objected due to their dependence upon claim 8.)
Claim 12 depends off of claim 1, which has been cancelled. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that claim 12 depends off claim 2.
Claim 13 depends off of claim 1, which has been cancelled. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that claim 13 depends off claim 2.
(Claims 14-16 are objected due to their dependence upon claim 13.)
Claim 17 depends off of claim 1, which has been cancelled. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that claim 17 depends off claim 2.
(Claim 18 is are objected due to their dependence upon claim 17.)
Claim 19 states that it depends off claim 1, which has been cancelled. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that claim 19 depends off claim 2. Claim 19 is also objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 mentions an “ultra-compact mobility vehicle”. This is not a term defined in the art. For the purpose of this examination the examiner will interpret the term to mean a micro-vehicle.
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 2-4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane in light of DE 10 2007018733.(Rieling).
As for claim 2, Yamane teaches a mobile body control device (Yamane: Fig. 1) comprising:
an instruction acquisition unit configured to acquire, from a communication device used by a user, instruction information for designating a predetermined target (Yamane: "For example, it is assumed that the occupant ... operates the terminal device to activate a dedicated application and transmits a vehicle pick-up request to the communication device 20 of the host vehicle M. The vehicle pick-up request is a command for calling the host vehicle M from a remote place away from the host vehicle M and requesting the host vehicle M to move to a position close to the occupant." [0092]]);
an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a captured image captured in a mobile body (Yamane: "...an acquirer configured to acquire a recognition result of a surroundings situation of a vehicle from a recognition device configured to recognize the surroundings situation of the vehicle"; [0007]);
a determination unit configured to determine a stop position of the predetermined target from the mobile body, where a region of the predetermined target has been identified in the captured image (Yamane: "...wherein the driving controller is configured to stop the vehicle at a first stop position according to a position of the user in the boarding area in a case in which a first recognition result indicating that the user has been recognized in the boarding area has been acquired by the acquirer when the vehicle is moved to the boarding area, and is configured to stop the vehicle at a second stop position according to a position of an entrance to a facility in the boarding area in a case in which a second recognition result indicating that the user has not been recognized in the boarding area has been acquired by the acquirer or in a case in which the first recognition result has not been acquired by the acquirer when the vehicle is moved to the boarding area" [0007]);
and a control unit configured to control traveling of the mobile body in such a way that the mobile body travels toward the determined stop position, (Yamane: "driving controller configured to control steering and a speed of the vehicle on the basis of the recognition result acquired by the acquirer, to move the vehicle so that a user located in a boarding area is able to board the vehicle," [0007])
Yamane does not specifically teach wherein the control unit controls a traveling speed according to a distance between the mobile body and the stop position. However, this is known in the art: (See Rieling. A control unit controlling travelling speed is shown in Fig. 3: deceleration system 3 (containing a deceleration distance detection device 4, a device for determining a speed function 5, and a deceleration device 6) [0032]; “According to one embodiment of the present invention, the vehicle is decelerated according to the specified speed function. This can be achieved, for example, by modulating the application of a vehicle brake and/or engaging a suitable gear to connect the vehicle's drive motor to the vehicle's driven wheels, with the drive motor then operating in overrun mode.”[0015]; “Finally, the invention provides a deceleration system for a vehicle, comprising a deceleration distance detection device, a device for determining a speed function for the vehicle, and a deceleration device.” [0017]. Fig.2a, which shows velocity of vehicle (“mobile body”) versus location (see Fig. 1a), shows that the speed function v(s) differs according to location and hence depends on the distance between the vehicle and the target location.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a speed function V(s) which changes with distance, as outlined by Rieling, in the autonomous control system of Yamane. The motivation would be, as Rieling mentions on page 2, to improve fuel economy.
As for claim 3, Yamane, as modified by Rieling, teaches wherein the control unit controls the traveling of the mobile body at a first speed when the distance is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, and controls the traveling of the mobile body at a second speed when the distance is less than the predetermined value. (Rieling: Fig 2a shows a velocity profile of the vehicle versus location of the vehicle between S0 (origin) and S1(ending location). Sx is a location between S0 and S1 such that the following conditions hold: the first relatively high deceleration between S0 and Sx is picked “so that it does not exceed a deceleration value that is pleasant and comfortable for the occupants of the vehicle” [0028]. The other constraint is that the vehicle operates in overrun mode throughout the distance from S0 to S1 and therefore consumes no fuel. [0028] The velocity function is determined before the vehicle traverses the distance ([0025], claims 1-5), which would imply that Sx (and the distance between Sx and S1) can be considered a “predetermined value”. (Note that claim 6 covers the case where the velocity function is dynamically recalculated during the journey) Note that Rieling shows as the velocity function a monotonically decreasing function with two discrete slope values corresponding to the two different deceleration values in Fig. 2b. In particular, velocity in the first section (corresponding to a distance between S0 and Sx) is a value between V0 and Vx, while any distance between Sx and S1 corresponds to a different velocity between Vx and V1. Under a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, these can be considered as two different binned velocity values.
As for claim 4, Yamane, as modified by Rieling, teaches wherein the second speed is slower than the first speed. (Rieling: see Fig. 2a, showing the velocity function. Note that Rieling shows as the velocity function a monotonically decreasing function with two discrete slope values corresponding to the two different deceleration values in Fig. 2b. In particular, velocity in the first section (corresponding to a distance between S0 and Sx) is a value between V0 and Vx, while any distance between Sx and S1 corresponds to a different velocity between Vx and V1. Under a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, this can be considered as two different binned velocity values, where the second velocity (between Vx and V1) is less than the first velocity (between V0 and Vx).)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in light of Yamane and in light of DE 10 2007018733.(Rieling)
As for claim 20, Yamane teaches a mobile body control method (Yamane: Figs. 5-6) comprising:
acquiring, from a communication device used by a user, instruction information for designating a predetermined target (Yamane: Communication device; instruction information: "A start trigger of the self-traveling and parking event, for example, may be that the host vehicle M has approached to within a predetermined distance from the visit destination facility, may be that the occupant has activated a dedicated application in a terminal device such as a mobile phone, or may be that the communication device 20 has wirelessly received a predetermined signal from the parking lot management device 400." [0086]);
acquiring a captured image captured in a mobile body (Yamane:"...an acquirer configured to acquire a recognition result of a surroundings situation of a vehicle from a recognition device configured to recognize the surroundings situation of the vehicle" [0007]);
determining a stop position of the predetermined target from the mobile body, where a region of the predetermined target has been identified in the captured image (Yamane: "...wherein the driving controller is configured to stop the vehicle at a first stop position according to a position of the user in the boarding area in a case in which a first recognition result indicating that the user has been recognized in the boarding area has been acquired by the acquirer when the vehicle is moved to the boarding area, and is configured to stop the vehicle at a second stop position according to a position of an entrance to a facility in the boarding area in a case in which a second recognition result indicating that the user has not been recognized in the boarding area has been acquired by the acquirer or in a case in which the first recognition result has not been acquired by the acquirer when the vehicle is moved to the boarding area" [0007]) ; and
controlling traveling of the mobile body in such a way that the mobile body travels toward the determined stop position, (Yamane: "driving controller configured to control steering and a speed of the vehicle on the basis of the recognition result acquired by the acquirer, to move the vehicle so that a user located in a boarding area is able to board the vehicle," [0007]).
Yamane does not specifically teach wherein a traveling speed is controlled according to a distance between the mobile body and the stop position. However, this is known in the art.(See Rieling: Fig.2a shows a speed function, where the speed of the vehicle at a particular distance differs according to the function. As it presently stands, the X-axis denotes distance from the starting point S0. This function can be flipped (S1 – x) so that the distance along the X-axis corresponds to the distance the vehicle is from the stopping position S1. That the vehicle is controlled so that its velocity is that of the speed function, see [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a speed function V(s) which changes with distance, as outlined by Rieling, in the autonomous control system of Yamane. The motivation would be, as Rieling mentions on page 2, to improve fuel economy.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane in light of Rieling as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 11,366,469 (Kuo).
As for claim 19, neither Yamane nor Rieling specifically teach the vehicle being an ultra-compact mobility vehicle. However, such vehicles are known in the art, such as shown in Kuo. (Kuo: see 105 in Fig. 1; description as a micro-vehicle, see title.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application for a micro-car, such as mentioned in Kuo, to be used in the system of Yamane. The motivation would be to provide the benefits of a micro-car for passengers using the stopping system of Yamane.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane in light of US 2017/0316533 (Goldman-Shenhar et al., hence Goldman-Shenhar).
As for claim 5, Yamane teaches a mobile body control device comprising: (Yamane:100 (Automated Driving Control Device (Fig. 1)) an instruction acquisition unit configured to acquire, from a communication device used by a user, instruction information
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-18 are allowed.
Claim 21 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights