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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: “communicator” in claim 7 and “in-vehicle communicator” in claim 11.
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. Corresponding structure for the claimed “communicator” and “in-vehicle communicator” is found in paragraph [0054] of the specification as-filed.
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogura et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0348690 A1) [hereinafter “Ogura”].
Regarding claim 1, Ogura discloses a remote device comprising:
a remote manipulator to remotely manipulate a working vehicle (remote controller 112; see [0051])
a display to display an image of an area in a direction of travel of the working vehicle captured during remote manipulation (display 113; see [0050]-[0059]); and
a controller configured or programmed to cause the display to display actual travel information at least during remote manipulation of the working vehicle (see [0050]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Ogura further discloses the captured image is an image of the area in the direction of travel of the working vehicle captured by an imager provided inside or outside a protection structure surrounding an operator’s seat on or in the working vehicle (see [0050]).
Regarding claim 11, Ogura discloses a remote manipulation system comprising:
a working vehicle (work vehicle 1 and/or 100); and
the remote device according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above); wherein
the working vehicle includes:
a position detector (moving receiver 33) to detect a position of the working vehicle (see [0037]);
an imager (camera 42) to capture an image of an area in a direction of travel of the working vehicle (see [0050]); and
an in-vehicle communicator (transceiver 110) to transmit position information indicating the position detected by the position detector and the captured image captured by the imager such that the position information and the captured image are associated with each other (see [0050]-[0059]);
the remote device includes a communicator (transceiver 111) to receive the position information and the captured image (see [0050]-[0059]); and
the controller is configured or programmed to cause the display to display actual travel information at least during remote manipulation of the working vehicle (see [0050]-[0059]).
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.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura in view of Wilson et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0026362 A1) [hereinafter “Wilson”].
Regarding claim 2, Ogura does not expressly teach the actual travel information includes information indicating a route actually traveled by the working vehicle manually operated or automatically operated.
Wilson also generally teaches a system for parallel or serial travel for work vehicles (see Abstract and Figures 7A-8B). Wilson teaches an actual route traveled by the vehicle previously during manual or automated travel is recorded and can then be brought up and displayed so that the vehicle can follow the same route (see [0054]-[0060], [0065], [0082], [01112], and [0133]). Wilson teaches this allows for more precise control of work vehicles in an agricultural environment (see [0003] and [0051]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Ogura so as to store previous routes for selection and display in the manner taught by Wilson, in view of Wilson, as Wilson teaches this allows for more precise control of the work vehicles in a coordinated effort.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ogura and Wilson further teaches the actual travel information is not information relating to a route and manipulation of the working vehicle remotely manipulated currently by a human remote manipulator, but is information relating to a route and manipulation relating to another vehicle other than the working vehicle remotely manipulated currently (see at least [0051]-[0065] and [0070] of Wilson).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ogura and Wilson further teaches information relating to a route and manipulation relating to a manual operation included in the actual travel information is information relating to a route and manipulation obtained when the other vehicle was manually operated by a driver in the other vehicle or when the other vehicle was remotely operated manually by the human remote manipulator not in the other vehicle (see at least [0051]-[0065], [0070], and [0082] of Wilson).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ogura and Wilson further teaches the display is configured to display the captured image on a remote operation screen (see [0050]-[0059] of Ogura); and the controller is configured or programmed to display a path in a superimposed manner on the captured image on the remote operation screen, the path being an actual travel route which was passed by the manual operation and which is included in the actual travel information (see [0051]-[0065] and Figure 9B of Wilson; see also [0050]-[0066] of Ogura).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ogura and Wilson further teaches a memory and/or a storage to store one or more pieces of the actual travel information; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, based on a selection instruction from the human remote manipulator, select one of the one or more pieces of actual travel information stored in the memory and/or the storage and cause the display to display, as the path, a route indicated by the selected one of the one or more pieces of actual travel information on the remote operation screen (see [0051]-[0065], [0095], [0112], and [0133] of Wilson).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ogura and Wilson further teaches the remote device further comprising:
a memory and/or a storage to store one or more pieces of the actual travel information (see [0112] of Wilson and [0055] of Ogura); and
a communicator to receive position information relating to the working vehicle and the captured image (transceiver 110 of Ogura, see [0050]-[0059] of Ogura); wherein
each of the one or more pieces of actual travel information includes information in which manipulation information obtained when the working vehicle or the other vehicle was actually operated and position information relating to the working vehicle or the other vehicle are associated with each other (see [0051]-[0065], [0095], [0112], and [0133] of Wilson); and
the controller is configured or programmed to, when the remote manipulator remotely manipulates the working vehicle:
select, from the memory and/or the storage, one of the one or more pieces of actual travel information that is associated with a target range including a position indicated by current position information relating to the working vehicle received by the communicator (see [0051]-[0065], [0095], [0112], [0133], and [0138]-[0139] of Wilson); and
cause the display to display, as the path, the actual travel route indicated by the selected one of the one or more pieces of actual travel information on the remote operation screen (see [0051]-[0065], [0095], [0112], [0133], and [0138]-[0139] of Wilson).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 recites the following (emphasis added):
The remote device according to claim 5, further comprising:
a memory and/or a storage to store one or more pieces of the actual travel information including respective one or more actual travel routes; wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to:
select one of the one or more actual travel routes stored in the memory and/or the storage based on priority information; and
cause the display to display the selected one of the one or more actual travel routes as the path on the remote operation screen.
The prior art does not disclose or teach the controller of the remote device selects one of the stored actual travel routes “based on priority information”. Wilson teaches the route can be selected based on picking a route of another vehicle that is closest to the current vehicle (see [0133]-[0140]). However, Wilson does not teach the stored actual travel route is selected based on any sort of priority information.
This difference between Wilson and the invention as claimed in claim 9 is not otherwise rendered obvious by any remaining evidence in the cited prior art.
Accordingly, claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims based upon its dependency from claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim (US 2022/0410929 A1) generally teaches:
An autonomous vehicle may include an autonomous driving control apparatus including a processor that is configured to request remote control of the autonomous vehicle to a control system when the remote control of the autonomous vehicle is required, and when receiving a driving path stored during a previous remote control of the autonomous vehicle from the control system, follows and controls the received driving path.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
