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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-3 and 5 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 4 and 6 have been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04 July 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 05 May 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 § 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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahnell (US 20190361464) in view of Arai EP3203457B1 (English Translation) in further view of Kinoshita (US 20110106341 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ahnell teaches A method for controlling a plurality of automated guided vehicles, comprising the steps of (see at least [¶011]):
setting a blocking area for each of the plurality of automated guided vehicles based on the real-time information regarding the positions of the plurality of automated guided vehicles acquired in the step of acquiring the real-time information (Setting a reserved/blocking area for each of the plurality of automated guidance vehicles based on their current locations. see at least [¶034 & 057-059]);
and controlling movements of the plurality of automated guided vehicles with reference to the blocking area (Controlling the movements of a plurality of automated guided vehicles with reference to a reserved/blocking area. see at least [¶034, 049, 059 & 068]),
wherein the automated guided vehicle route comprises a plurality of points and movement lines connecting two adjacent points among the plurality of points (The routes/paths of the plurality of automated guided vehicles are made of a plurality of points that are connected to each other (adjacent). see at least [¶046, 057 & 065]),
wherein in the step of setting the blocking area, when an automated guided vehicle is located at any one of the plurality of points, a point at which the automated guided vehicle is located and a movement line adjacent thereto are set as the blocking area (Setting a reserved/blocking area when an automated guided vehicle is located at any of the plurality of points on a path and setting the line adjacent to it as a reserved area. This can be seen in figure 1 with the adjacent block/line being reserved at all times. see at least [¶047-055, 064-066 & Fig 1]),
and the blocking area is set and changed in real time in accordance with the movement of each of the plurality of automated guided vehicles (The reserved/blocking area are changed in real-time with the movement of each automated guided vehicle, the states of areas are continuously changed from reserved too available. see at least [¶047-055, 064-066 & Fig 1]),
wherein in the step of controlling movements of the plurality of automated guided vehicles, the movement of the automated guided vehicle attempting to enter the blocking area is controlled to stop and the movement of the automated guided vehicle is controlled to resume when the blocking area is released (Controlling the movements of a plurality of automated guided vehicles with reference to a reserved/blocking area. A second AGV is stopped from entering a reserved area when a first AGV is using the area and is allowed to pass through the area once the reserved area is cancelled. see at least [¶034, 049, 059-060, 064-066 & 068]).
wherein, when two or more movement lines join any one point among the plurality of points in the automated guided vehicle route and any one of movement line of the two or more movement lines is set as the blocking area, a rest of the movement lines are also set as the blocking area (see at least [¶059-060 & Fig 2b]).
Ahnell does not explicitly teach acquiring real-time information regarding positions of the plurality of automated guided vehicles moving along an automated guided vehicle route; when the automated guided vehicle is located on any one of the movement lines, when the automated guided vehicle is located on any one of the movement lines, a movement line on which the automated guided vehicle is located and a movement line through which the automated guided vehicle has just passed are set as the blocking area.
Shall be noted that Ahnell teaches to assign to obtain current positions of AGVs based on their first position and length. (see at least “[¶063] In other general terms, in at least some exemplary embodiments, a current position of the first wagon is determined based on a current position of the first towing vehicle and also based on the distance between a part of the first towing vehicle and a part, such as a rear part, of the first wagon. Said distance should be measured along the path that said first towing vehicle and said first wagon are traveling along.”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Arai.
However, Arai does teach acquiring real-time information regarding positions of the plurality of automated guided vehicles moving along an automated guided vehicle route (Acquiring current/real-time positions of a plurality of automated guided vehicles moving along the travel path. see at least [¶020, 035, 062-063, 071, 075 & 078-079]);
when the automated guided vehicle is located on any one of the movement lines, a movement line on which the automated guided vehicle is located and a movement line through which the automated guided vehicle has just passed are set as the blocking area (An automated guided vehicle (could be vehicle 20-1 or 20-2) is located on a movement line/section, a movement line/section on which the automated guided vehicle is located and a movement line/section through which the automated guided vehicle has just passed are set as the blocking/prohibited area, with the sections 81-2 being areas that another vehicle cannot enter (and would be the reason for a vehicle to take an overtaking path or maintain its distance to another vehicle). see at least [¶075, 0114, 0122-0125, 0124, 0127 & FIG 8 and 12-13]).
Arai would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of managing multiple unmanned vehicles. 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 Ahnell to use the technique of acquiring real-time information regarding positions of the plurality of automated guided vehicles moving along an automated guided vehicle route; when the automated guided vehicle is located on any one of the movement lines, when the automated guided vehicle is located on any one of the movement lines, a movement line on which the automated guided vehicle is located and a movement line through which the automated guided vehicle has just passed are set as the blocking area as taught by Arai. Doing so would lead to improved efficiency when managing multiple unmanned vehicles using predefined paths (see at least [¶09]).
Ahnell and Arai do not explicitly teach and wherein, when there are two or more divided automated guided vehicle routes and a movement line of any one of the two or more divided automated guided vehicle routes is set as the blocking area, a movement line on another automated guided vehicle route adjacent to the movement line which is set as the blocking area is also set as the blocking area.
However, Kinoshita does teach and wherein, when there are two or more divided automated guided vehicle routes and a movement line of any one of the two or more divided automated guided vehicle routes is set as the blocking area, a movement line on another automated guided vehicle route adjacent to the movement line which is set as the blocking area is also set as the blocking area (There can be two or more divided travel routes for AGVs and when one of the travel routes is set as a blocking area, an adjacent travel route is also set as a blocking route to reduce the possibility of collisions between vehicles. The adjacent travel line can be found at an intersection either in the forward or diverging direction. see at least [¶059-062, 064, 077 & FIG 7]).
Kinoshita would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of a traveling vehicle 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 Ahnell and Arai to use the technique of having when there are two or more divided automated guided vehicle routes and a movement line of any one of the two or more divided automated guided vehicle routes is set as the blocking area, a movement line on another automated guided vehicle route adjacent to the movement line which is set as the blocking area is also set as the blocking area as taught by Kinoshita. Doing so would lead to reduced possibility of a collision between vehicles in a blocking area (see at least [¶059]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ahnell, Arai and Kinoshita teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Furthermore, Ahnell teaches setting the automated guided vehicle route in advance (The paths/routes for the automated guided vehicles are set/determined in advance. see at least [¶011, 046 & 065-066]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ahnell, Arai and Kinoshita teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Furthermore, Arai teaches wherein in the step of setting the blocking area, when the automated guided vehicle is located on any one of the movement lines, a movement line to which the automated guided vehicle will move next is set as the blocking area in addition to the movement line on which the automated guided vehicle is located and the movement line through which the automated guided vehicle has just passed (When an unmanned vehicle is located at any of the movement lines/paths, the movement path in which a vehicle is on, the path it has just passed and the path it will move to next are set as a prohibited/blocking section/area. see at least [¶0122-0125 & FIG 13b]).
Arai would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of managing multiple unmanned vehicles. 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 Ahnell and Kinoshita to use the technique of having in the step of setting the blocking area, when an automated guided vehicle is located on any one of the movement lines, a movement line to which the automated guided vehicle will move next is set as the blocking area in addition to the movement line on which the automated guided vehicle is located and the movement line through which the automated guided vehicle has just passed as taught by Arai. Doing so would lead to improved efficiency when managing multiple unmanned vehicles using predefined paths (see at least [¶09]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ahnell, Arai and Kinoshita teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Furthermore, Arai teaches A non-temporary computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program for executing the method according to Claim 1 (see at least [¶014]).
Arai would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of managing multiple unmanned vehicles. 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 Ahnell and Kinoshita to use the technique of providing a non-temporary computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program for executing the method as taught by Arai. Doing so would lead to improved efficiency when managing multiple unmanned vehicles using predefined paths (see at least [¶09]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Transport System (US 20190071085 A1)
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 866-2
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
Prosecution Insights