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 .
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant's amendment of 29 April 2025. Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the objections of the abstract as set forth in the office action of 29 January 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections of the abstract as set forth in the office action of 29 January 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the Claim interpretation of claim 10 under 35 USC 112(f) have been considered and are persuasive since the terms which were being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the office action of 29 January 2025 are no longer recited in any of the claims or amended with appropriate structure.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 2-9 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 29 January 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2-9 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 29 January 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 29 January 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A complete discussion of the Examiner's rejection is set forth in the Office Action, and is not being repeated here.
Without admitting the Office Action's arguments as being correct Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite "transmitting information on the set next work of the mobile body to the mobile body, the information on the set next work including information on a route for the mobile body to pass." This amendment is supported by paragraph [0044] of the specification as filed. This limitation in combination with the other limitation of claim 1 cause the claims to be directed to a practical application of the alleged abstract idea (mental process) because this limitation is significant post-solution activity. Claim 1 recites specific rules for assigning work based on the circumstances of the mobile body and also transmits a rout for mobile body to take while completing the assigned work. Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to merely automating a process of creating a list of work but is directed to a practical application of instructing a mobile body of work to be performed.
Claim 1 of the present invention is similar to claim 2 of example 46 "Livestock Management" from Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility published by the USPTO. In claim 2 of example 46 sending a control signal to a feed dispenser to take an action based on the results of the analysis was considered patent eligible. Similarly in this application the information on a route for the mobile body to pass is transmitted. Which similarly results in a real world outcome for the transmission (even though the transmission itself is not the real world output). Accordingly, Claim 1 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two of the Alice test just as claim 2 of example 46 integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 10 and 11 include similar limitations and are similarly directed to practical applications. Accordingly, claims 1, 10 and 11 and their dependent claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiners Response:
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant's arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding the inclusion of “transmitting…”, the limitation is broad and thus would still fall under insignificant post-solution activity. The limitation in its current state does not show that anything happens when the work is transmitted to the mobile body and is treated as merely transmitting information to a mobile body. In addition, Example 46 does have a sending step but this step automatically leads to a dispensing of a machine which is not the case in the current claims. As such, even in combination, these additional elements, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-11 under 35 USC 102 & 103 as set forth in the office action of 29 January 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 3-7 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 3 recites the limitation "a charge amount" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4-7 are also rejected for depending on claim 3.
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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 10 is directed to a system/device and claim 11 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, claims 1, 10 and 11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 10 and 11 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing method comprising:
acquiring information on a charge amount of a mobile body;
acquiring information on a scheduled work, the scheduled work being a work that is scheduled to be done and can be a next work;
and setting the next work of the mobile body based on the information on the charge amount and the information on the scheduled work;
and transmitting information on the set next work of the mobile body to the mobile body, the information on the set next work including information on a route for the mobile body to pass,
wherein in the setting the next work,
in response to the charge amount being less than a reference threshold value, and an estimated charge amount of the mobile body, calculated by subtracting an estimated power consumption that is estimated to be consumed by the mobile body when the mobile body moves to a charging point after performing the scheduled work from the charge amount, being equal to or greater than a limit threshold value, the scheduled work is set as the next work, and
in response to the charge amount being less that the reference threshold value, and the estimated charge amount being less that the limit threshold value, a work of moving to the charging point is set as the next work of the mobile body
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “setting …”, “calculated…” and “set…” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing method comprising:
acquiring information on a charge amount of a mobile body;
acquiring information on a scheduled work, the scheduled work being a work that is scheduled to be done and can be a next work;
and setting the next work of the mobile body based on the information on the charge amount and the information on the scheduled work;
and transmitting information on the set next work of the mobile body to the mobile body, the information on the set next work including information on a route for the mobile body to pass,
wherein in the setting the next work,
in response to the charge amount being less than a reference threshold value, and an estimated charge amount of the mobile body, calculated by subtracting an estimated power consumption that is estimated to be consumed by the mobile body when the mobile body moves to a charging point after performing the scheduled work from the charge amount, being equal to or greater than a limit threshold value, the scheduled work is set as the next work, and
in response to the charge amount being less that the reference threshold value, and the estimated charge amount being less that the limit threshold value, a work of moving to the charging point is set as the next work of the mobile body
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information for use in the setting and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 10 and 11 further recite “An information processing device comprising: processing circuitry configured to:” and “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform processing, the processing comprising” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of acquiring information from mobile bodies is a well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 3-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims merely define terms or have additional steps such as “setting”, “acquiring” and “causing”. Therefore, dependent claims 3-9 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-11 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 3 & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vestal (US 20140365258 A1) in further view of Ito JP2020075785A (English Translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Vestal teaches An information processing method comprising (see at least [¶01]):
acquiring information on a charge amount of a mobile body (Acquiring battery charge amount of a mobile body/robot. see at least [¶027, 0164 & 0166]);
acquiring information on a scheduled work, the scheduled work being a work that is scheduled to be done and can be a next work (Acquiring information on scheduled work/jobs, with the scheduled work/job being work/jobs that need to be done and can be set for the robot to do. see at least [¶0164-0169]);
and setting the next work of the mobile body based on the information on the charge amount and the information on the scheduled work (Setting the next work/job of the mobile body/robot based on the battery charge information and the information on scheduled work/jobs. see at least [¶067-076, 0107 & 0164-0169]);
and transmitting information on the set next work of the mobile body to the mobile body, the information on the set next work including information on a route for the mobile body to pass (Transmitting information of the next work/job to a mobile/robot, with the job having a route the robot will take. see at least [¶025]).
Vestal does not explicitly teach wherein in the setting the next work, in response to the charge amount being less than a reference threshold value, and an estimated charge amount of the mobile body, calculated by subtracting an estimated power consumption that is estimated to be consumed by the mobile body when the mobile body moves to a charging point after performing the scheduled work from the charge amount, being equal to or greater than a limit threshold value, the scheduled work is set as the next work, and in response to the charge amount being less that the reference threshold value, and the estimated charge amount being less that the limit threshold value, a work of moving to the charging point is set as the next work of the mobile body.
However, Ito does teach wherein in the setting the next work, in response to the charge amount being less than a reference threshold value, and an estimated charge amount of the mobile body, calculated by subtracting an estimated power consumption that is estimated to be consumed by the mobile body when the mobile body moves to a charging point after performing the scheduled work from the charge amount, being equal to or greater than a limit threshold value, the scheduled work is set as the next work (For setting the next work of the mobile transport system, the charge amount can be less than the first threshold amount but higher or equal to a second threshold amount. In this situation, it is determined that the estimated/predicted charge amount of the mobile transport system will be between the two threshold amounts (done by subtracting power consumption) and the work command is executed (work is scheduled as the next work). see at least [¶048-052]),
and in response to the charge amount being less that the reference threshold value, and the estimated charge amount being less that the limit threshold value, a work of moving to the charging point is set as the next work of the mobile body (In response to a charge amount being less than both a first and second threshold, the next action of the mobile transport system is to move to a charging point and charge for a longer set of time (charging priority is high). see at least [¶051 & 059]).
Ito would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of managing work based on charge amount for transport systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Vestal to use the technique of in the setting the next work, in response to the charge amount being less than a reference threshold value, and an estimated charge amount of the mobile body, calculated by subtracting an estimated power consumption that is estimated to be consumed by the mobile body when the mobile body moves to a charging point after performing the scheduled work from the charge amount, being equal to or greater than a limit threshold value, the scheduled work is set as the next work, and in response to the charge amount being less that the reference threshold value, and the estimated charge amount being less that the limit threshold value, a work of moving to the charging point is set as the next work of the mobile body as taught by Ito. Doing so would lead to improved charging management of mobile transport systems (see at least [¶045 & 057]).
Regarding Claim 3, Vestal and Ito teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, furthermore, Vestal teaches wherein in the acquiring information on the charge amount (Acquiring information on the charge amount. see at least [¶027, 0164 & 0166]),
a charge amount of a first mobile body is acquired, in the acquiring information on the scheduled work, information on the scheduled work assigned to the first mobile body is acquired (Acquiring information on scheduled work/jobs, with the scheduled work/job being work/jobs that need to be done by a first robot. see at least [¶0164-0169]),
and in the setting the next work, when the estimated charge amount for the scheduled work assigned to the first mobile body is equal to or greater than the limit threshold value, the scheduled work is set as the next work of the first mobile body (For setting the next work/job, the scheduled work/job is set as the next job for the robot when the estimated battery charge amount is above a desired threshold value. see at least [¶067-076, 0107 & 0164-0169]).
Regarding Claim 10, An information processing device comprising (see at least [¶01]):
processing circuitry configured to (A processor part of the job management system. see at least [¶025]):
acquire information on a charge amount of a mobile body (Acquiring battery charge amount of a mobile body/robot. see at least [¶027, 0164 & 0166]);
acquire information on a scheduled work, the scheduled work being a work that is scheduled to be done and can be a next work (Acquiring information on scheduled work/jobs, with the scheduled work/job being work/jobs that need to be done and can be set for the robot to do. see at least [¶0164-0169]);
and set a next work of the mobile body based on the information on the charge amount and the information on the scheduled work (Setting the next work/job of the mobile body/robot based on the battery charge information and the information on scheduled work/jobs. see at least [¶067-076, 0107 & 0164-0169]).
and to transmit information on the set next work of the mobile body to the mobile body, the information on the set next work including information on a route for the mobile body to pass (Transmitting information of the next work/job to a mobile/robot, with the job having a route the robot will take. see at least [¶025]).
Vestal does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: set the scheduled work as the next work in response to the charge amount being less than a reference threshold value, and an estimated charge amount of the mobile body, calculated by subtracting an estimated power consumption that is estimated to be consumed by the mobile body when the mobile body moves to a charging point after performing the scheduled work from the charge amount, being equal to or greater than a limit threshold value, set a work of moving to the charging point as the next work of the mobile body in response to the charge amount being less that the reference threshold value, and the estimated charge amount being less that the limit threshold value.
However, Ito does teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: set the scheduled work as the next work in response to the charge amount being less than a reference threshold value, and an estimated charge amount of the mobile body, calculated by subtracting an estimated power consumption that is estimated to be consumed by the mobile body when the mobile body moves to a charging point after performing the scheduled work from the charge amount, being equal to or greater than a limit threshold value (For setting the next work of the mobile transport system, the charge amount can be less than the first threshold amount but higher or equal to a second threshold amount. In this situation, it is determined that the estimated/predicted charge amount of the mobile transport system will be between the two threshold amounts (done by subtracting power consumption) and the work command is executed (work is scheduled as the next work). see at least [¶046 & 048-052]),
set a work of moving to the charging point as the next work of the mobile body in response to the charge amount being less that the reference threshold value, and the estimated charge amount being less that the limit threshold value (In response to a charge amount being less than both a first and second threshold, the next action of the mobile transport system is to move to a charging point and charge for a longer set of time (charging priority is high). see at least [¶051 & 059]).
Ito would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of managing work based on charge amount for transport systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Vestal to use the technique of having the processing circuitry is further configured to: set the scheduled work as the next work in response to the charge amount being less than a reference threshold value, and an estimated charge amount of the mobile body, calculated by subtracting an estimated power consumption that is estimated to be consumed by the mobile body when the mobile body moves to a charging point after performing the scheduled work from the charge amount, being equal to or greater than a limit threshold value, set a work of moving to the charging point as the next work of the mobile body in response to the charge amount being less that the reference threshold value, and the estimated charge amount being less that the limit threshold value as taught by Ito. Doing so would lead to improved charging management of mobile transport systems (see at least [¶045 & 057]).
Regarding Claim 11, A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform processing, the processing comprising (see at least [¶01 & 040]):
acquiring information on a charge amount of a mobile body (Acquiring battery charge amount of a mobile body/robot. see at least [¶027, 0164 & 0166]):
acquiring information on a scheduled work, the scheduled work being a work that is scheduled to be done and can be a next work (Acquiring information on scheduled work/jobs, with the scheduled work/job being work/jobs that need to be done and can be set for the robot to do. see at least [¶0164-0169]);
and setting a next work of the mobile body based on the information on the charge amount and the information on the scheduled work (Setting the next work/job of the mobile body/robot based on the battery charge information and the information on scheduled work/jobs. see at least [¶067-076, 0107 & 0164-0169]).
and transmitting information on the set next work of the mobile body to the mobile body, the information on the set next work including information on a route for the mobile body to pass (Transmitting information of the next work/job to a mobile/robot, with the job having a route the robot will take. see at least [¶025]).
Vestal does not explicitly teach wherein in the setting the next work, in response to the charge amount being less than a reference threshold value, and an estimated charge amount of the mobile body, calculated by subtracting an estimated power consumption that is estimated to be consumed by the mobile body when the mobile body moves to a charging point after performing the scheduled work from the charge amount, being equal to or greater than a limit threshold value, the scheduled work is set as the next work, and in response to the charge amount being less that the reference threshold value, and the estimated charge amount being less that the limit threshold value, a work of moving to the charging point is set as the next work of the mobile body.
However, Ito does teach wherein in the setting the next work, in response to the charge amount being less than a reference threshold value, and an estimated charge amount of the mobile body, calculated by subtracting an estimated power consumption that is estimated to be consumed by the mobile body when the mobile body moves to a charging point after performing the scheduled work from the charge amount, being equal to or greater than a limit threshold value, the scheduled work is set as the next work (For setting the next work of the mobile transport system, the charge amount can be less than the first threshold amount but higher or equal to a second threshold amount. In this situation, it is determined that the estimated/predicted charge amount of the mobile transport system will be between the two threshold amounts (done by subtracting power consumption) and the work command is executed (work is scheduled as the next work). see at least [¶048-052]),
and in response to the charge amount being less that the reference threshold value, and the estimated charge amount being less that the limit threshold value, a work of moving to the charging point is set as the next work of the mobile body (In response to a charge amount being less than both a first and second threshold, the next action of the mobile transport system is to move to a charging point and charge for a longer set of time (charging priority is high). see at least [¶051 & 059]).
Ito would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of managing work based on charge amount for transport systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Vestal to use the technique of in the setting the next work, in response to the charge amount being less than a reference threshold value, and an estimated charge amount of the mobile body, calculated by subtracting an estimated power consumption that is estimated to be consumed by the mobile body when the mobile body moves to a charging point after performing the scheduled work from the charge amount, being equal to or greater than a limit threshold value, the scheduled work is set as the next work, and in response to the charge amount being less that the reference threshold value, and the estimated charge amount being less that the limit threshold value, a work of moving to the charging point is set as the next work of the mobile body as taught by Ito. Doing so would lead to improved charging management of mobile transport systems (see at least [¶045 & 057]).
Claim 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vestal (US 20140365258 A1) in further view of Ito JP2020075785A (English Translation) in further view of Ohtsuka (US 20220100571 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Vestal and Ito teach all of the limitations of claim 3 as shown above, Vestal and Ito do not explicitly teach wherein in the acquiring information on the scheduled work, information on the scheduled work assigned to a second mobile body is acquired, and in the setting the next work, when the estimated charge amount for the scheduled work assigned to the second mobile body is equal to or greater than the limit threshold value, the scheduled work assigned to the second mobile body is set as the next work of the first mobile body.
However, Ohtsuka does teach wherein in the acquiring information on the scheduled work, information on the scheduled work assigned to a second mobile body is acquired (Acquiring information on scheduled work/task assigned to different robots/second robot. see at least [¶0179-0185]),
and in the setting the next work, when the estimated charge amount for the scheduled work assigned to the second mobile body is equal to or greater than the limit threshold value, the scheduled work assigned to the second mobile body is set as the next work of the first mobile body (For setting the next work/task, when the estimated amount of battery charge necessary for a task is greater than a threshold of a second robot, the task is assigned to a different/first robot. see at least [¶0186-0191 & 0193]).
Ohtsuka would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of robot scheduling system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Vestal and Ito to use the technique of acquiring information on the scheduled work, information on the scheduled work assigned to a second mobile body is acquired, and in the setting the next work, when the estimated charge amount for the scheduled work assigned to the second mobile body is equal to or greater than the limit threshold value, the scheduled work assigned to the second mobile body is set as the next work of the first mobile body as taught by Ohtsuka. Doing so would lead to successful completion of all tasks (see at least [¶0193]).
Regarding Claim 8, Vestal and Ito teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Vestal and Ito do not explicitly teach setting the reference threshold value for the charge amount of the mobile body based on the information on the charge amount and the information on the scheduled work, wherein, in the setting the next work, the next work is set based on the reference threshold value.
However, Ohtsuka does teach setting the reference threshold value for the charge amount of the mobile body based on the information on the charge amount and the information on the scheduled work, wherein, in the setting the next work, the next work is set based on the reference threshold value (Setting a reference threshold value for the battery charge amount of the robot based on the information of the battery charge amount required to perform the scheduled work, with the system using the threshold value to set the next work/task of a robot. see at least [¶0148-0151]).
Ohtsuka would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of robot scheduling system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Vestal and Ito to use the technique of setting the reference threshold value for the charge amount of the mobile body based on the information on the charge amount and the information on the scheduled work, wherein, in the setting the next work, the next work is set based on the reference threshold value as taught by Ohtsuka. Doing so would lead to successful completion of all tasks (see at least [¶0193]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vestal (US 20140365258 A1) in further view of Ito JP2020075785A (English Translation) in further view of Ohtsuka (US 20220100571 A1) in further view of Kazama (US 20160026186 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Vestal, Ito and Ohtsuka teach all of the limitations of claim 4 as shown above, furthermore, Ohtsuka teaches causing the first mobile body to execute the scheduled work originally assigned to the second mobile body (Causing a different/first robot to perform/execute the scheduled work/task originally assigned to the second/original robot. see at least [¶0186-0191 & 0193]).
Ohtsuka would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of robot scheduling system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Vestal and Ito to use the technique of causing the first mobile body to execute the scheduled work originally assigned to the second mobile body as taught by Ohtsuka. Doing so would lead to successful completion of all tasks (see at least [¶0193]).
Vestal, Ito and Ohtsuka do not explicitly teach and then set as the next work of the first mobile body, the next work being a work of causing the mobile body to pick up a target object located at a conveyance source, convey the target object to a conveyance destination, and drop the target object at the conveyance destination, wherein in the causing the first mobile body to execute the scheduled work, the first mobile body is caused to convey the target object to an intermediate position located on the conveyance destination side of the conveyance source and drop the target object at the intermediate position.
However, Kazama does teach and then set as the next work of the first mobile body, the next work being a work of causing the mobile body to pick up a target object located at a conveyance source, convey the target object to a conveyance destination, and drop the target object at the conveyance destination (Set the work/task of the first transport vehicle to be the work/task of picking up a target object/rack at a location, move the object to a destination and drop off the object at the destination. see at least [¶035-039]),
wherein in the causing the first mobile body to execute the scheduled work, the first mobile body is caused to convey the target object to an intermediate position located on the conveyance destination side of the conveyance source and drop the target object at the intermediate position (When a first transport vehicle is moving an object to a desired destination from a scheduled work/task, the transport vehicle is instructed to move the object to an intermediate position/transfer area and drop off the object at such area before the object reaches its final destination. see at least [¶035-039]).
Kazama would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of transport management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Vestal, Ito and Ohtsuka to use the technique of set as the next work of the first mobile body, the next work being a work of causing the mobile body to pick up a target object located at a conveyance source, convey the target object to a conveyance destination, and drop the target object at the conveyance destination, wherein in the causing the first mobile body to execute the scheduled work, the first mobile body is caused to convey the target object to an intermediate position located on the conveyance destination side of the conveyance source and drop the target object at the intermediate position as taught by Kazama. Doing so would lead to a reduced delay in transporting an object to a destination (see at least [¶0162]).
Regarding Claim 6, Vestal, Ito, Ohtsuka and Kazama teach all of the limitations of claim 5 as shown above, furthermore, Kazama teaches in the causing the first mobile body to execute the scheduled work, the first mobile body is caused to drop the target object and then move to the charging point (When the first transport vehicle is executing the scheduled work/task, the transport vehicle can be instructed to drop off the target object/rack at a transfer area and move to a charging point when the vehicle is low in battery. see at least [¶065-068, 074-077 & 0151-0163]).
Kazama would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of transport management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Vestal, Ito and Ohtsuka to use the technique of causing the first mobile body to execute the scheduled work, the first mobile body is caused to drop the target object and then move to the charging point as taught by Kazama. Doing so would lead to a reduced delay in transporting an object to a destination (see at least [¶0162]).
Regarding Claim 7, Vestal, Ito, Ohtsuka and Kazama teach all of the limitations of claim 5 as shown above, furthermore, Kazama teaches in the causing the first mobile body to execute the scheduled work, a branch point at which a route from the conveyance source to the charging point and another route from the conveyance source to the conveyance destination branch off from each other is set as the intermediate position (When the first transport vehicle is executing the scheduled work/task, the transport vehicle can be instructed to drop off the target object/rack at a transfer area. With the intermediate position/transfer area being the branching point from a route to a charging point and an original route to the destination of the object. see at least [¶0151-0163]).
Kazama would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of transport management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Vestal, Ito and Ohtsuka to use the technique causing the first mobile body to execute the scheduled work, a branch point at which a route from the conveyance source to the charging point and another route from the conveyance source to the conveyance destination branch off from each other is set as the intermediate position as taught by Kazama. Doing so would lead to a reduced delay in transporting an object to a destination (see at least [¶0162]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vestal (US 20140365258 A1) in further view of Ito JP2020075785A (English Translation) in further view of Ohtsuka (US 20220100571 A1) in further view of Arimura (US 20230344258 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Vestal, Ito and Ohtsuka teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as shown above, Vestal, Ito and Ohtsuka do not explicitly teach wherein, in the setting the reference threshold value, the reference threshold value is set such that time periods during which at least two of the mobile bodies are charged do not overlap with each other.
However, Arimura does teach wherein, in the setting the reference threshold value, the reference threshold value is set such that time periods during which at least two of the mobile bodies are charged do not overlap with each other (Setting the reference threshold values that prevents two robots from charging at the same time. see at least [¶023, 053 & 080-081]).
Arimura would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of robot charging management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Vestal, Ito and Ohtsuka to use the technique of in the setting the reference threshold value, the reference threshold value is set such that time periods during which at least two of the mobile bodies are charged do not overlap with each other as taught by Arimura. Doing so would lead to improved charging management of a plurality of robots in a work area (see at least [¶053]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667