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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of claim 1:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method (process) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1. A method of tracking a path performed by an electronic device comprising wheels, the method comprising:
selecting a target point on a target path;
determining a target angular velocity or a target velocity based on the target point and a current state of the electronic device; and
determining speeds of the respective wheels of the electronic device based on the target angular velocity and the target velocity,
wherein the target velocity is determined based on a first linear velocity with respect to a current position of the electronic device, a second linear velocity with respect to a curvature preview position, or a third linear velocity.
The limitations highlighted in claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consist of a selecting a future point on a path, determining a target angular velocity based on the target point and the current position, determining a speed of each wheel based on the target angular velocity and the target velocity. This is equivalent to a person, knowing the current position of a vehicle and seeing a curvature ahead in the path, determining the target velocity for a vehicle (data processing). Thus, the claim recites a mental process. The examiner notes that the claim as currently presented (under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim) do not require the implementation or control of a vehicle based on the speeds for each of the wheels, but instead merely requires the determining of the speeds.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1. A method of tracking a path performed by an electronic device comprising wheels, the method comprising:
selecting a target point on a target path;
determining a target angular velocity or a target velocity based on the target point and a current state of the electronic device; and
determining speeds of the respective wheels of the electronic device based on the target angular velocity and the target velocity,
wherein the target velocity is determined based on a first linear velocity with respect to a current position of the electronic device, a second linear velocity with respect to a curvature preview position, or a third linear velocity.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements underlined above merely recite that the method is performed by an electronic device comprising wheels. This is the equivalent to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. At best, this limitation is the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the claim. As such, claim 1 is not integrated into practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, there only a single additional element – the method being performed by an electronic device comprising wheels. The determination/processing of data is merely well understood, routine and conventional activity for vehicle controllers/processing systems. MPEP 2106.05(d). The use of a processor to process and interpret (sensor) data is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for computer processors.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Analysis of claims 11 and 20:
Claims 11 and 20 are commensurate in scope to claim 1, with claim 1 being drawn to a method, claim 11 being drawn to a corresponding path tracker (device) and claim 20 being drawn to a corresponding electronic device. As such, claims 11 and 20 are rejected using a similar analysis as applied to claim 1 above. Moreover, the additional element of “generating target waypoints based on sensor data of the electronic device and performing path tracking that tracks a target path based on the target waypoints” are further limitations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are limitation that can be performed in the human mind and as such are a mental process, using a similar analysis as applied to claim 1 above.
Analysis of claims 2-10 and 12-19:
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 include limitations that are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (data processing/determination of information; further defining the limitations of claim 1 that are categorized as a mental process) using a similar analysis as applied to claim 1 above.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (CN 110789530).
With respect to claim 1, and commensurate claims 11 and 20, Xu teaches a method of tracking a path performed by an electronic device comprising wheels (see at least Abstract, Figs. 4 and 5 and ¶ [0030] “track tracking method and system of four-wheel independent steering-independent drive vehicle), the method comprising: selecting a target point on a target path (see at least ¶[0042] “step S110, selecting the point satisfying the front probe distance constraint and the radial distance constraint on the target track as the front probe point”; determining a target angular velocity or a target velocity based on the target point and a current state of the electronic device (see at least ¶[0042] “step S120, according to the current position relation of the front probe point and the vehicle body, fitting a circular arc track passing through the front probe point and the vehicle body reference point and calculating the radius of the circular arc track; step S130, calculating the angular velocity of the vehicle body reference point according to the set vehicle speed and the arc track radius;”); and determining speeds of the respective wheels of the electronic device based on the target angular velocity and the target velocity (see at least ¶[0042] “step S140, according to the vehicle body reference point of the angular velocity and linear velocity to obtain the wheel rotating speed control amount and the angle control amount to control the vehicle to travel along the target track”), wherein the target velocity is determined based on a first linear velocity with respect to a current position of the electronic device, a second linear velocity with respect to a curvature preview position, or a third linear velocity (see at least ¶[0042]-[0046].
With respect to claim 2, and commensurate claim 12, Xu et al. teach wherein the target point is a point selected to be a point of the target path that is closest to the current position of the electronic device (see at least ¶[0052] “starting from the nearest path point of the vehicle body”).
With respect to claim 3, and commensurate claim 13, Xu et al. teach wherein the target angular velocity is determined based on a lateral distance error between the target point and the current position of the electronic device and based on a heading angle error of the electronic device (see at least ¶ [0052]-[0053] “setting the path point as the front probe point; according to the current position relation of the front probe point and the vehicle body, fitting a circular arc track of the front probe point and the vehicle body reference point, and calculating the radius of the circular arc track… calculating the angular speed according to the vehicle speed and the arc track radius; “.
With respect to claim 6, and commensurate claim 16, Xu et al. teaches wherein the curvature preview position is determined based on a position selected to be a shortest path to the target path based on a position by a curvature preview distance to be traveled by the electronic device (see at least ¶[0052] “starting from the nearest path point of the vehicle body, calculating whether the distance between the path point and the vehicle body reference point is greater than the front distance constraint, until finding the path point of the vehicle body reference point linear distance greater than the front detection distance, setting the path point as the front probe point”).
With respect to claim 7, and commensurate claim 17, Xu et al. teach wherein the curvature preview distance is determined based on a preview time and a current velocity of the electronic device (see at least ¶[0052] “starting from the nearest path point of the vehicle body, calculating whether the distance between the path point and the vehicle body reference point is greater than the front distance constraint, until finding the path point of the vehicle body reference point linear distance greater than the front detection distance, setting the path point as the front probe point”).
With respect to claim 9, and commensurate claim 19, Xu et al. teach wherein the speeds of the respective wheels are determined using a skid-steering kinetic model (see at least ¶[0042] “based on the built kinematics model, the corner speed and linear speed of the vehicle body reference point can be decomposed into the rotating speed of the wheel”.
With respect to claim 10, Xu et al. teach updating target waypoints based on sensor data of the electronic device; updating the target path based on the sensor data and the target waypoints; and updating a first curvature value with respect to the current position of the electronic device and a second curvature value with respect to the curvature preview position of the electronic device based on the updated target path (see at least ¶[0041] “using the laser radar to obtain the environment information, SLAM module based on the point cloud data output pose information of the vehicle, target track output curvature information. trajectory tracking method based on pose information and curvature information to calculate the curvature of the fitted track in the current control period; the motion decomposition module calculates the wheel speed according to the output curvature information; the corner control amount controls the whole vehicle to travel to the target track. For example, the laser radar provides real-time pose information of the vehicle, the target track is a discrete path point, the path point for three times spline curve interpolation, can approximate the curvature information of the target track. calculating the vehicle track in the current control according to the geometric relationship between the vehicle body pose and the target track…”) .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5, 8, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. in view of Zou et al. (CN 118192572).
With respect to claim 4, and commensurate claim 14, Xu et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the first linear velocity is determined based on a friction coefficient between the wheels of the electronic device and a physical surface and based on a first curvature value with respect to the current position of the electronic device. However, Zou et al. teach a track tracking control method for a independent four wheeled robot wherein the curvature of the track, the angular velocity of the robot and the friction moment are used to determine the kinematic model of the robot which is then used to control the robot (see at least ¶[0060]-[0118]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the kinematic model of the robot that is based on a friction coefficient as taught by Zou et al. with the track tracking system of Xu et al. as both systems are directed to the tracking of track for a wheeled robot and accounting for the friction coefficient between the wheels and the running surface would ensure that slipping of the robot when following the track is minimized.
With respect to claim 5, and commensurate claim 15, Xu et al. does not specifically teach wherein the second linear velocity is determined based on a friction coefficient between the wheels of the electronic device and a physical surface and based on a second curvature value with respect to a curvature preview position of the electronic device. However, Zou et al. teach a track tracking control method for a independent four wheeled robot wherein the curvature of the track, the angular velocity of the robot and the friction moment are used to determine the kinematic model of the robot which is then used to control the robot (see at least ¶[0060]-[0118]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the kinematic model of the robot that is based on a friction coefficient as taught by Zou et al. with the track tracking system of Xu et al. as both systems are directed to the tracking of track for a wheeled robot and accounting for the friction coefficient between the wheels and the running surface would ensure that slipping of the robot when following the track is minimized.
With respect to claim 8, and commensurate claim 18, Xu et al. do not specifically teach wherein the determining of the target velocity comprises applying a maximum friction circle model based on a friction coefficient between the wheels of the electronic device and a physical surface. However, Zou et al. teach a track tracking control method for a independent four wheeled robot wherein the curvature of the track, the angular velocity of the robot and the friction moment are used to determine the kinematic model of the robot which is then used to control the robot (see at least ¶[0060]-[0118]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the kinematic model of the robot that is based on a friction coefficient as taught by Zou et al. with the track tracking system of Xu et al. as both systems are directed to the tracking of track for a wheeled robot and accounting for the friction coefficient between the wheels and the running surface would ensure that slipping of the robot when following the track is minimized.
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