DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites, “a candidate target”. It is not clear what all is meant and encompassed by the phrase. What does a candidate target refer to? Is it a target speed of a robot, location, a route, obstacle, etc? The phrase is incomplete.
In claim 1, lines 10 and 11, “the target object” lacks antecedent basis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12370673 or US 10717189. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, Kawamoto (12370673) discloses a method for operating a movable apparatus (claims 1, 15) comprising:
controllably driving a movement of the movable apparatus (claims 1, 15);
capturing with a camera a captured image and producing image data (claims 1, 15);
generating current location information of the movable apparatus based on GPS information (claims 1, 15);
transmitting to an instructing device the current location information of the movable apparatus and the image data to display a visual indicator of a candidate target on a display of the instructing device based on the image data (claims 1, 15);
receiving feedback information from the instructing device, the feedback information indicating that the candidate target object is correctly identified as the target object (claims 1, 15), wherein:
the feedback information is created from a feedback operation to control an operation of the movable apparatus (claims 1, 15), and
the visual indicator is set to indicate that the candidate target object is the target object based on the feedback information (claims 1, 15); and
controlling the movement of the movable apparatus and an operation of the camera based on the feedback information (claims 1, 15).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamoto (10717189) discloses a method for operating a movable apparatus (claims 1, 13, 24, 30) comprising:
controllably driving a movement of the movable apparatus (claims 1, 13, 24, 30);
capturing with a camera a captured image and producing image data (claims 1, 15);
generating current location information of the movable apparatus based on GPS information (claims 1, 13, 24, 30);
transmitting to an instructing device the current location information of the movable apparatus and the image data to display a visual indicator of a candidate target on a display of the instructing device based on the image data (claims 1, 13, 24, 30);
receiving feedback information from the instructing device, the feedback information indicating that the candidate target object is correctly identified as the target object (claims 1, 13, 24, 30), wherein:
the feedback information is created from a feedback operation to control an operation of the movable apparatus (claims 1, 13, 24, 30), and
the visual indicator is set to indicate that the candidate target object is the target object based on the feedback information (claims 1, 13, 24, 30), and
controlling the movement of the movable apparatus and an operation of the camera based on the feedback information (claims 1, 13, 24, 30).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al (US 20060111811) in view of Gal (US 20110035054).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto et al (US 20060111811) discloses a method for operating a movable apparatus (a driving circuitry that controllable drives a movement of the movable apparatus; fig. 2, 13, 18, 20, 23, 29; sec 0143, 0286-0290, 0372-0380, 0470, 0471, 0593, 0744-0746, 0763); comprising:
controllably driving a movement of the movable apparatus (; fig. 2, 13, 18, 20, 23, 29; sec 0143, 0286-0290, 0372-0380, 0470, 0471, 0593, 0744-0746, 0763);
capturing with a camera a captured image and producing image data (a camera configured to capture a captured image and produce image data; 11b, fig. 12; sec 0151, 0260, 0296, 0381-0385, 0416, 0417, 448, 449, 0593);
generating current location information of the movable apparatus based dead reckoning information (sec 0016, 0019-0021 );
transmitting to an instructing device the current location information of the movable apparatus (location of robot, sec 0134, 0135, 0194, 0195, 0228, 0231, 0280) and the image data to display a visual indicator of a candidate target on a display of the instructing device based on the image data (image data (11b, fig. 12; sec 0260, 0296, 0381-0385, 0416, 0417, 448, 449, 0593);
receiving feedback information from the instructing device, the feedback information indicating that the candidate target object is correctly identified as the target object (the captured image in the visual indicator of the instruction device or operator console is correctly identified as a target object; fig. 2, 18, 20, 23, 29; sec 0143, 0286-0290, 0469, 0470, 0471), wherein:
the feedback information is created from a feedback operation to control an operation of the movable apparatus (fig. 2, 13, 18, 20, 23, 29; sec 0143, 0286-0290, 0372-0380, 0470, 0471, 0593, 0744-0746, 0763), and
the visual indicator is set to indicate that the candidate target object is the target object based on the feedback information (the captured image in the visual indicator of the instruction device or operator console is correctly identified as a target object; fig. 2, 18, 20, 23, 29; sec 0143, 0286-0290, 0469, 0470, 0471), and
controlling the movement of the movable apparatus and an operation of the camera based on the feedback information (fig. 2, 13, 18, 20, 23, 29; sec 0143, 0286-0290, 0372-0380, 0470, 0471, 0593, 0744-0746, 0763).
Okamoto did not particularly indicate that the current location information is generated based on information from GPS, rather Okamoto teaches of location information being generated based on Dead Reckoning sensors.
However, Gal teaches of generating current location information of the movable apparatus (abstract, sec 0015, 0016, 0021, 0023, 0086, 0087, 0089) based on GPS information (abstract, sec 0015, 0016, 0021, 0023, 0086, 0087, 0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Okamoto as taught by Gal for the purpose of improving Okamoto in obtaining precise location and orientation information (Gal, sec 0086, 0087) since Okamoto (sec 0763) shows interest for precise location information that he could not get by using dead reckoning sensors.
Conclusion
The prior art, US 12038748 B2, US 8918213 B2, made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights