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 .
Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: obstacle 1 and obstacle 2.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the layout and orientation of the motion device in relation to the first and second obstacles as well as the O-XYZ coordinate system must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Similarly, the layout and orientation of the motion device in relation to the first, second, third, and fourth obstacles, and where the “first plane” is located, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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:
[0016]: “the Z axis may be parallel to a front orientation of the motion device” is assumed to mean that the Z axis is in the direction the motion device is/will be travelling. The terms “obstacle 1” and “obstacle 2” are mentioned in [0100], [0111], and [0113] but have no corresponding existence in any of the diagrams. If these are “first obstacle” and “second obstacle” they should be referred to as such.
[0034]: this would seem to indicate that “an obstacle” can be a set of discrete objects and is not limited to one object. This is not a standard interpretation in the art of smart vehicles. If “an obstacle” is to be interpreted as such, it should be made obvious when first mentioned.
[0033]: contains the phrase (line 3): “…determining an obstacle that is in the second obstacle and the third obstacle…”[Wingdings font/0xE0] what does this mean? This needs to be clarified.
[0055]: contains the phrase (line 3): “…determining an obstacle that is in the second obstacle and the third obstacle…”[Wingdings font/0xE0] what does this mean? This needs to be clarified.
[0165]: contains the phrase (line 3): “…determining an obstacle that is in the second obstacle and the third obstacle…”[Wingdings font/0xE0] what does this mean? This needs to be clarified.
[0182]: contains the phrase (line 3): “…determining an obstacle that is in the second obstacle and the third obstacle…”[Wingdings font/0xE0] what does this mean? This needs to be clarified.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim starts with “The m1ethod…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In general: “an obstacle” is interpreted as being a set of one or more discrete objects. This is consistent with specification paragraph [0034] (“For example, the third obstacle may be all obstacles included in the image.”) and the use of the term “obstacle density” (specification paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
Claims 7 and 16 mention “second location information.” This is considered to be the same type of information as the “first location information” mentioned in claims 1 and 10. It is simply the “first location information” measured of a third obstacle.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 is ambiguous because the metes and bounds of “in a process in which the motion device moves to the destination” are not clear. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as following a route to the destination that avoids an obstacle.
(Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 112b due to their dependence upon claim 1)
Claim 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the sensing range" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this is considered to be a sensing range.
Claim 7 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.
As it is presently written up, claim 7 is ambiguous because the statement “determining a fourth obstacle from the second obstacle and the third obstacle in a first plane and that is closer to the motion device as the first obstacle” makes no sense. What is closer to the motion device—the fourth obstacle? The third obstacle? the first plane? How is a fourth obstacle determined “from the second obstacle and the third obstacle”? Is the existence of a fourth obstacle what is being determined or does this refer to distances the fourth obstacle is located from the second obstacle and the third obstacle? Note that the support in the specification for this claim (e.g.[0033]) does not clarify matters because it seems to state that the fourth obstacle is a) a set/cloud of objects, and b) intersecting with the second and third obstacles, both of which are also set/cloud-like objects.
For purposes of examination, it is assumed that a fourth obstacle is concatenated together from the second and third obstacles, defined as parts of the set of objects which are closer to the motion object than the first object is, when distance is measured along a first plane parallel to a plane defined by “a depth direction of the motion device and a height direction” (the yz-plane in the O-XYZ coordinate system defined in specification paragraph [0016].)
Claims 10-18 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.
Claim 10 is ambiguous because the metes and bounds of “in a process in which the motion device moves to the destination” are not clear. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as following a route to the destination that avoids an obstacle.
(Claims 10-18 are also rejected under 112b due to their dependence upon claim 10)
Claim 16 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 16 is rejected for the same reasons as for claim 7. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that a fourth obstacle is concatenated together from the second and third obstacles, defined as parts of the set of objects which are closer to the motion object than the first object is, when distance is measured along a first plane parallel to a plane defined by “a depth direction of the motion device and a height direction” (the yz-plane in the O-XYZ coordinate system defined in specification paragraph [0016].)
Claims 19-20 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.
Claim 19 is ambiguous because the metes and bounds of “in a process in which the motion device moves to the destination” are not clear. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as following a route to the destination that avoids an obstacle.
(Claim 20 is rejected under 112b due to its dependence upon claim 19)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20 would be allowable if their base claims were rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 5, 7, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and if their base claims were rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
