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 Claims
This communication is in response to application No. 18/127,780 filed on 3/29/2023 and is the first action on the merits. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 06/27/2023 and reviewed by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because multiple dependent claims should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
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: “an acquisition unit configured to” in claim 1, “a determination unit configured to” in claim 1, “a setting unit configured to” in claim 1, “an adjustment unit configured to” in claim 1, “an acquisition step of” in claim 7, “a determination step of” in claim 7, “a setting step of” in claim 7, “an adjustment step of” in claim 7, “an operation schedule management device configured to” in claim 8, “an acquisition unit configured to” in claim 8, “a determination unit configured to” in claim 8, “a setting unit configured to” in claim 8, and “an adjustment unit configured to” in claim 8.
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.
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.
The operation schedule management server 100 and the vehicles 110 each include a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), a random-access memory (RAM), and a communication unit.
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 1, 4, 7-8 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.
The term “stoppable range” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The overlap in the stoppable range is rendered indefinite by the use of the aforementioned relative term.
The term “outer edge of stoppable range” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “outer edge of stoppable range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The stop location of an autonomous vehicle carrying a load is rendered indefinite by the use of the aforementioned relative term.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “same position”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether the term “same position” is referring to orientation or location, therefore rendering the claims indefinite.
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 1-8 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 an apparatus, claim 7 is directed to a method, and claim 8 is directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1, 7 and 8 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 7 and 8 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
An operation schedule management device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire an operation schedule of each of a
plurality of mobile objects;
a determination unit configured to determine presence of an overlapping stop
indicating that a plurality of mobile objects stop at the same position at the same time on
the basis of the operation schedules;
a setting unit configured to set a stoppable range in which a plurality of mobile
objects are able to stop at the same position; and
an adjustment unit configured to adjust stop locations of the mobile objects such
that the stop locations do not overlap in the stoppable range when the determination unit
determines that the overlapping stop is present.
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, “determining …” 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 (processor, system, etc.) 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”):
The claim(s) recite(s):
1. An operation schedule management device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire an operation schedule of each of a
plurality of mobile objects;
a determination unit configured to determine presence of an overlapping stop
indicating that a plurality of mobile objects stop at the same position at the same time on
the basis of the operation schedules;
a setting unit configured to set a stoppable range in which a plurality of mobile
objects are able to stop at the same position; and
an adjustment unit configured to adjust stop locations of the mobile objects such
that the stop locations do not overlap in the stoppable range when the determination unit
determines that the overlapping stop is present.
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 of “acquire an application schedule” and “set a stoppable range” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to acquire data and set a stop point. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it simply includes gathering data and setting a stoppable range which falls under insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the operation schedule management device, system, and method would only comprise of an acquisition unit to acquire schedules, a determination unit, a setting unit to set a stoppable range for a plurality of objects, and an adjustment unit. These additional elements do not outline an inventive concept. Lastly, claims 7 and 8 further recite the “An operation schedule management method that is performed by a computer of an operation schedule management device” and “An operation schedule management system” 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. 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, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 associating portion(s) of data with queue(s) are 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), and the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is associating portion(s) of data with queue(s) is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-8 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.
Claims 1-2, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Higashide (US20210309260A1) in view of Park (US20050080524A1).
Regarding claim 1, Higashide discloses an operation schedule management device (see Abstract; “an operation management device) comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire an operation schedule of each of a plurality of mobile objects (see at least [0015] and [0051]; “The operation management device includes an operation schedule providing unit, an operating situation obtaining unit, a delayed vehicle extraction unit, and an overtaking instruction unit, The operation schedule storage unit 49 stores an operation schedule of the vehicles equipped with the storage unit.),
an adjustment unit configured to adjust stop locations of the mobile objects such that the stop locations do not overlap in the stoppable range when the determination unit determines that the overlapping stop is present (see at least [0098-0099]; “Overtaking the delayed vehicle C3 by the overtaking vehicle C4 while the delayed vehicle C3 remains stopped enables highly safe overtaking; for example, overtaking with low possibility of intersection between these vehicles.”). Therefore, Higashide teaches that the control device adjusts the stop location of the vehicle C3 in order to ensure the stop points of C3 and C4 do not overlap.
Higashide fails to disclose a determination unit configured to determine presence of an overlapping stop indicating that a plurality of mobile objects stop at the same position at the same time on the basis of the operation schedules, and a setting unit configured to set a stoppable range in which a plurality of mobile objects are able to stop at the same position.
However, Park teaches a determination unit configured to determine presence of an overlapping stop indicating that a plurality of mobile objects stop at the same position at the same time on the basis of the operation schedules (see at least Figure 2, [ ¶ 0023], [¶ 0043-0044]; “The host computer 10 is a computer to transmit a conveyance request to the control device 20 to convey articles from a predetermined loading location to a predetermined unloading location”, “If, as a result of the determination in operation 150 shown in FIG. 2, it is determined that the simultaneous movements of the AGV1 and the AGV2 to the working locations are impossible, the AGV1 performs a maximal approach movement to the working location of the AGV1 in operation 170…That is, if, as the result of the determination in operation 150, it is determined that the simultaneous movements are impossible because the distance between the working locations of the AGV1 and the AGV2 is shorter than the predetermined distance, the moving directions of the AGV1 and the AGV2 are different, and/or the working location of the AGV2 is on the path of the AGV1, the AGV1 is moved to a location spaced apart by a predetermined distance from the work location/stop location of the AGV2 to perform a maximal approach movement to the working location/stop loaction of the AGV1”, this means that the system determines there is an overlap of stoppage location of AGV1 and AGV2 at same time and same location). Park teaches that the management device transmits a work request to a predetermined stop location to load or unload, and it is determined whether their movements at the same time are to the same place rendering movement impossible, and moving one vehicle to as close as possible to the stop location where work is performed.
a setting unit configured to set a stoppable range in which a plurality of mobile objects are able to stop at the same position (see at least [¶ 0039] and [¶ 0049]; “The determining of whether the simultaneous movements of the AGV1 and the AGV2 to the working locations are possible is performed by calculating a distance between the working locations and moving directions of the AGV1 and the AGV2 based on the information about the current locations and working locations of the AGV1 and the AGV2 obtained in operation 140 and by determining whether a distance between the working locations of the AGV1 and the AGV2 is longer than a predetermined distance based on the calculated information in operation 151”, “That is, if, as the result of the determination in operation 150, it is determined that the simultaneous movements are impossible because the distance between the working locations of the AGV1 and the AGV2 is shorter than the predetermined distance, the moving directions of the AGV1 and the AGV2 are different, and/or the working location of the AGV2 is on the path of the AGV1, the AGV1 is moved to a location spaced apart by a predetermined distance from the work location of the AGV2 to perform a maximal approach movement to the working location of the AGV1, thus reducing overall conveying time”, this means the system set stoppable range/predetermined distance where the mobile objects can stop at same position). Park teaches that the management device set predetermined distance is equivalent to a stoppable range between two mobile objects at same working location or same stop location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashide to incorporate teachings of Park which teaches a determination unit configured to determine presence of an overlapping stop indicating that a plurality of mobile objects stop at the same position at the same time on the basis of the operation schedules and a setting unit configured to set a stoppable range in which a plurality of mobile objects are able to stop at the same position since they are both directed to determining overlapping stop locations for a plurality of mobile objects based on their schedules.
Regarding claim 2, Higashide discloses an operation schedule management device according to claim 1, wherein the operation schedule includes a departure time at which the corresponding mobile object departs from the same position (The operation schedule which depicts the departure times of the buses from the same location, see at least Figure 2), wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the stop location of a mobile object with an earlier departure time out of the plurality of mobile objects to an area which is located in front of the corresponding mobile object in a traveling direction of the mobile object in the stoppable range (C5 through C8 are located at a holding stop location in a garage, where the mobile object with the earliest departure time is in front of the mobile object the traveling direction, see at least Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Higashide discloses wherein the stoppable range is an area including a plurality of sections ([0033]: “This traffic system includes a plurality of bus stops ST1 to ST3 set along a predetermined route 100”),
wherein the stop location of each mobile object is one section of the plurality of sections (The stop locations of each mobile object as one section of the plurality of sections, see at least Figure 6),
wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the stop locations of the mobile objects such that two sections adjacent to each other in a longitudinal direction with respect to a traveling direction of the mobile objects are not both set as the stop locations or such that two sections adjacent to each other in a lateral direction with respect to the traveling direction are not both set as the stop locations (see at least [0098-0099], “Overtaking the delayed vehicle C3 by the overtaking vehicle C4 while the delayed vehicle C3 remains stopped enables highly safe overtaking; for example, overtaking with low possibility of intersection between these vehicles… Further, the route generating unit 44 generates a route that avoids the delayed vehicle C3 stopped, and executes overtake-running control to overtake the delayed vehicle C3 along the route”). By the management device adjusting the stop location of the vehicle C3 in order to ensure their stop locations do not intersect, this adjustment also avoids the lateral direction and longitudinal direction with respect to the travel direction being set as stop points in order to avoid intersection between the vehicles.
Regarding claim 7, Higashide discloses an operation schedule management method that is performed by a computer of an operation schedule management device, the operation schedule management method (see Abstract; “an operation management device) comprising:
An acquisition step of acquiring an operation schedule of each of a plurality of mobile objects (see at least [0015] and [0051]; “The operation management device includes an operation schedule providing unit, an operating situation obtaining unit, a delayed vehicle extraction unit, and an overtaking instruction unit, The operation schedule storage unit 49 stores an operation schedule of the vehicles equipped with the storage unit.),
an adjustment step of adjusting stop locations of the mobile objects such that the stop locations do not overlap in the stoppable range when it is determined in the determination step that the overlapping stop is present (see at least [0098-0099]; “Overtaking the delayed vehicle C3 by the overtaking vehicle C4 while the delayed vehicle C3 remains stopped enables highly safe overtaking; for example, overtaking with low possibility of intersection between these vehicles.”). Therefore, Higashide teaches that the control device adjusts the stop location of the vehicle C3 in order to ensure the stop points of C3 and C4 do not overlap.
Higashide does not disclose a determination step of determining presence of an overlapping stop indicating that a plurality of mobile objects stop at the same position at the same time on the basis of the operation schedules or a setting step of setting a stoppable range in which a plurality of mobile objects are able to stop at the same position.
However, Park teaches a determination step configured to determine presence of an overlapping stop indicating that a plurality of mobile objects stop at the same position at the same time on the basis of the operation schedules (see at least Figure 2, [0023], [0043-0044]; “The host computer 10 is a computer to transmit a conveyance request to the control device 20 to convey articles from a predetermined loading location to a predetermined unloading location”, “If, as a result of the determination in operation 150 shown in FIG. 2, it is determined that the simultaneous movements of the AGV1 and the AGV2 to the working locations are impossible, the AGV1 performs a maximal approach movement to the working location of the AGV1 in operation 170…That is, if, as the result of the determination in operation 150, it is determined that the simultaneous movements are impossible because the distance between the working locations of the AGV1 and the AGV2 is shorter than the predetermined distance, the moving directions of the AGV1 and the AGV2 are different, and/or the working location of the AGV2 is on the path of the AGV1, the AGV1 is moved to a location spaced apart by a predetermined distance from the work location of the AGV2 to perform a maximal approach movement to the working location of the AGV1”). Park teaches that the management device transmits a work request to a predetermined stop location to load or unload, and it is determined whether their movements at the same time are to the same place rendering movement impossible, and moving one vehicle to as close as possible to the stop location where work is performed.
a setting step configured to set a stoppable range in which a plurality of mobile objects are able to stop at the same position (see at least [0039] and [0049]; “The determining of whether the simultaneous movements of the AGV1 and the AGV2 to the working locations are possible is performed by calculating a distance between the working locations and moving directions of the AGV1 and the AGV2 based on the information about the current locations and working locations of the AGV1 and the AGV2 obtained in operation 140 and by determining whether a distance between the working locations of the AGV1 and the AGV2 is longer than a predetermined distance based on the calculated information in operation 151”, “That is, if, as the result of the determination in operation 150, it is determined that the simultaneous movements are impossible because the distance between the working locations of the AGV1 and the AGV2 is shorter than the predetermined distance, the moving directions of the AGV1 and the AGV2 are different, and/or the working location of the AGV2 is on the path of the AGV1, the AGV1 is moved to a location spaced apart by a predetermined distance from the work location of the AGV2 to perform a maximal approach movement to the working location of the AGV1, thus reducing overall conveying time”). Park teaches that the management device set predetermined distance is equivalent to a stoppable range between two mobile objects at same working location or same stop location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashide to incorporate teachings of Park which teaches a determination step configured to determine presence of an overlapping stop indicating that a plurality of mobile objects stop at the same position at the same time on the basis of the operation schedules and a setting step configured to set a stoppable range in which a plurality of mobile objects are able to stop at the same position since they are both directed to determining overlapping stop locations for a plurality of mobile objects based on their schedules.
Regarding claim 8, Higashide discloses an operation schedule management system comprising: a plurality of mobile objects; and an operation schedule management device configured to manage operation schedules of the plurality of mobile objects (see [002]; “an operation management device that manages the operation of a plurality of automatic running vehicles”),
wherein the operation schedule management device includes: an acquisition unit configured to acquire the operation schedules of the plurality of mobile objects (see at least [0015] and [0051]; “The operation management device includes an operation schedule providing unit, an operating situation obtaining unit, a delayed vehicle extraction unit, and an overtaking instruction unit, The operation schedule storage unit 49 stores an operation schedule of the vehicles equipped with the storage unit.),
an adjustment unit configured to adjust stop locations of the mobile objects such that the stop locations do not overlap in the stoppable range when the determination unit determines that the overlapping stop is present (see at least [0098-0099]; “Overtaking the delayed vehicle C3 by the overtaking vehicle C4 while the delayed vehicle C3 remains stopped enables highly safe overtaking; for example, overtaking with low possibility of intersection between these vehicles.”). Therefore, Higashide teaches that the control device adjusts the stop location of the vehicle C3 in order to ensure the stop points of C3 and C4 do not overlap.
Higashide fails to disclose a determination unit configured to determine presence of an overlapping stop indicating that a plurality of mobile objects stop at the same position at the same time on the basis of the operation schedules, and a setting unit configured to set a stoppable range in which a plurality of mobile objects are able to stop at the same position.
However, Park teaches a determination unit configured to determine presence of an overlapping stop indicating that a plurality of mobile objects stop at the same position at the same time on the basis of the operation schedules (see at least Figure 2, [0023], [0043-0044]; “The host computer 10 is a computer to transmit a conveyance request to the control device 20 to convey articles from a predetermined loading location to a predetermined unloading location”, “If, as a result of the determination in operation 150 shown in FIG. 2, it is determined that the simultaneous movements of the AGV1 and the AGV2 to the working locations are impossible, the AGV1 performs a maximal approach movement to the working location of the AGV1 in operation 170…That is, if, as the result of the determination in operation 150, it is determined that the simultaneous movements are impossible because the distance between the working locations of the AGV1 and the AGV2 is shorter than the predetermined distance, the moving directions of the AGV1 and the AGV2 are different, and/or the working location of the AGV2 is on the path of the AGV1, the AGV1 is moved to a location spaced apart by a predetermined distance from the work location of the AGV2 to perform a maximal approach movement to the working location of the AGV1”). Park teaches that the management device transmits a work request to a predetermined stop location to load or unload, and it is determined whether their movements at the same time are to the same place rendering movement impossible, and moving one vehicle to as close as possible to the stop location where work is performed.
a setting unit configured to set a stoppable range in which a plurality of mobile objects are able to stop at the same position (see at least [0039] and [0049]; “The determining of whether the simultaneous movements of the AGV1 and the AGV2 to the working locations are possible is performed by calculating a distance between the working locations and moving directions of the AGV1 and the AGV2 based on the information about the current locations and working locations of the AGV1 and the AGV2 obtained in operation 140 and by determining whether a distance between the working locations of the AGV1 and the AGV2 is longer than a predetermined distance based on the calculated information in operation 151”, “That is, if, as the result of the determination in operation 150, it is determined that the simultaneous movements are impossible because the distance between the working locations of the AGV1 and the AGV2 is shorter than the predetermined distance, the moving directions of the AGV1 and the AGV2 are different, and/or the working location of the AGV2 is on the path of the AGV1, the AGV1 is moved to a location spaced apart by a predetermined distance from the work location of the AGV2 to perform a maximal approach movement to the working location of the AGV1, thus reducing overall conveying time”). Park teaches that the management device set predetermined distance is equivalent to a stoppable range between two mobile objects at same working location or same stop location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashide to incorporate teachings of Park which teaches a determination unit configured to determine presence of an overlapping stop indicating that a plurality of mobile objects stop at the same position at the same time on the basis of the operation schedules and a setting unit configured to set a stoppable range in which a plurality of mobile objects are able to stop at the same position since they are both directed to determining overlapping stop locations for a plurality of mobile objects based on their schedules.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Higashide (US20210309260A1) in view of Park (US20050080524A1) in further view of Yamamoto (US20210300407A1).
Regarding claim 3, Higashide and Park in combination disclose all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Higashide and Park fail to disclose wherein the operation schedule includes information of a load loaded on the corresponding mobile object, and wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the stop locations of the mobile objects on the basis of the information of a load.
However, Yamamoto teaches wherein the operation schedule includes information of a load loaded on the corresponding mobile object (The management device includes an information of a load based on user information, see at least Figure 1),
wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the stop locations of the mobile objects on the basis of the information of a load (The designated stop location schedule based on the information of the load given by the user that is adjusted based on the request of the load in and load out location, see Figure 10 and Figure 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashide to incorporate Yamamoto teaching of load based stop locations, because the mobile objects are structured to carry a load and the weight could improve efficiency by indicating a delay in the operation of the plurality of mobile vehicles.
Regarding claim 4, Higashide and Park in combination disclose all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Higashide and Park fail to disclose wherein the information of a load includes presence information indicating whether the load is present, and wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the stop location of a mobile object having to load to an area close to an outer edge of the stoppable range on the basis of the presence information.
However, Yamamoto teaches wherein the information of a load includes presence information indicating whether the load is present (see at least [0088]; "The schedule determination unit 321 judges that the load P has not been loaded out as scheduled on the basis of the information received from the load-carrying vehicle), therefore, the schedule device includes whether the load is present or not.
wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the stop location of a mobile object having to load to an area close to an outer edge of the stoppable range on the basis of the presence information ([Par 88]: "The schedule determination unit 321 judges that the load P has not been loaded out as scheduled on the basis of the information received from the load-carrying vehicle 200 and changes the movement schedule information"). Since the “outer edge” and “stoppable range” are not clearly defined, the examiner interprets them as a broad definition for “locations convenient for cargo to be loaded/unloaded”. Therefore, any vehicle has a “stoppable range” when parked as well as is considered “close to the outer edge”. Yamamoto teaches that the stop according to the movement schedule information is adjusted based on the information of the load, and can be considered as reading on the claim since the vehicle is stopped to be loaded or unloaded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashide to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto to indicate whether a load is present or not because the load can dictate the behavior of the mobile objects. The incorporation of the teachings of Yamamoto would increase accuracy and reliability of the mobile object system.
Regarding claim 5, Higashide and Park fail to disclose wherein the information of a load includes weight information indicating weight of the load, and wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the stop location of a mobile object to an area closer to an outer edge of the stoppable range as the weight of the load becomes larger on the basis of the weight indicated by the weight information.
However, Yamamoto teaches wherein the information of a load includes weight information indicating weight of the load (see [0083]: "in accordance with a size, a weight, a carrying distance, and the like of a load P"),
wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the stop location of a mobile object to an area closer to an outer edge of the stoppable range as the weight of the load becomes larger on the basis of the weight indicated by the weight information (“That is to say, the operation determination unit 322 decides an operation of the load-carrying vehicle 200 on the basis of the movement schedule information 393 generated on the basis of the application information received by the receiver 320. The operation of the load-carrying vehicle 200 decided by the operation determination unit 322 includes details such as a stop instruction at a route, a load-in point, or a load-out point (an instruction for a stop timing may be provided or an instruction of a point may be provided and may be left to the judgment of the load-carrying vehicle 200) and a determination which of the storage part 240 is caused to be empty at a load-in point or a load-out point.”). Since the “outer edge” and “stoppable range” are not clearly defined, the examiner interprets them as a broad definition for “locations convenient for cargo to be loaded/unloaded”. Therefore, any vehicle has a “stoppable range” when parked as well as is considered “close to the outer edge”. Yamamoto teaches that the stop according to the movement schedule information is adjusted based on the information of the load, to include weight, and can be considered as reading on the claim since the vehicle is stopped to be loaded or unloaded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashide to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto because the weight of the load information and its associate stop location are related to the function and schedule of the mobile objects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA VICTORIA HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/H.V.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3664 /RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664