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 rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 16 September 2025. Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 16 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claims 4-5, 8-15 and 17-20 are canceled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 June 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Arguments and amendments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive and rejection is withdrawn. 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 1 and 2 is sustained since applicant has not argued or amended claim language. Arguments and amendments regarding 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7 and 16 have been fully considered and are not persuasive and rejections are sustained. Amendment of claim 1 contain conditional limitations:” wherein each of the simulation times refers to a parameter used in the predicting of the moving time of a corresponding automated guided vehicle and which is increasable if a rotation of the corresponding automated guided vehicle is required when crossing the intersection” which are not required by broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim Interpretation and Contingent Limitations
Claim 1 contain conditional limitations: ” wherein each of the simulation times refers to a parameter used in the predicting of the moving time of a corresponding automated guided vehicle and which is increasable if a rotation of the corresponding automated guided vehicle is required when crossing the intersection”
With respect to conditional limitations in process claims, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
As claims 1-3, 6-7, and 16 are process claims, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to claims 1-3, 6-7, and 16. See MPEP 2111.04, Il “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. .. [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of claim 3 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim").
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require “a rotation of the corresponding automated guided vehicle is required when crossing the intersection” since “if ” introduces a non-required step.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3, 6-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 2 are indefinite because wherein one of the main automated guided vehicle and the crossing automated guided vehicle, which has a longer simulation time, obtains a priority is indefinite since it is not clear if the main automated guided vehicle or the crossing automated guided vehicle has a longer simulation time. It is also unclear what "obtains a priority" means. If that means the main automated guided vehicle can cross the intersection before the crossing automated guided vehicle or if the crossing automated guided vehicle crosses the intersection before the main automated guided vehicle.
Claims 3, 6-7 and 16 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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, 6-7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama (US 6484078 B1) in view of KUROKAWA et al. (US 20220247597 A1), AN et al. ( CN 110827572 A), and Nanri; Takuya et al. (US 20200111366 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kageyama teaches, A method for driving a main automated guided vehicle in an unmanned transport system (vehicle control system for managing vehicles traveling toward a worksite, the vehicles are unmanned, see at least, Col1, Line 8-9, and Col 5, line 36, Kageyama), the method comprising: determining whether a work is assigned to the main automated guided vehicle (Fig. 2 depicts the monitor station 20 that determines worksites for the unmanned vehicles, see at least, Col 7, Line 59-64, Kageyama); extracting a first control point and a second control point of the work when the work is assigned to the main automated guided vehicle; determining whether multiple routes exist from the first control point to the second control point; predicting a moving time of the main automated guided vehicle for all candidate routes and determining a shortest time route among the candidate routes as the final route of the main automated guided vehicle, when the total number of the routes from the first control point to the second control point is equal to or greater than two (The main AGV is vehicle 30, and the monitor station selects a travel route with a shortest travel time in the case there is a plurality of travel routes. The first control point is the current positions of the vehicles and the worksite is the second control point, see at least, Col 4, Line 58-63, Kageyama); and driving the main automated guided vehicle to the final route (the vehicle 30 travels along the changed travel route, see at least, Col 5 Line 10-13, Kageyama), wherein the predicting of the moving time of the main automated guided vehicle comprises (waiting time Twait is interpreted as part of the moving time of the AGV since it is time that the vehicle is in a travel state and not doing work, see at least, Col 5 Line 10-13, Kageyama): determining current positions of all of the automated guided vehicles in the unmanned transport system including the main automated guided vehicle; and determining the simulation times of all of the automated guided vehicles, wherein each of the simulation times refers to a parameter used in the predicting of the moving time of a corresponding automated guided vehicle and which is increasable if a rotation of the corresponding automated guided vehicle is required when crossing the intersection (Fig. 11(a) shows calculating The waiting time for each vehicle, takes into account the current positions of all the vehicles to determine the order which the vehicle is in line, and the simulation times (Ts) for each vehicle in the transport system used for predicting the moving time, see at least, Col 18, Line 34-57, Kageyama), wherein the predicting of the moving time of the main automated guided vehicle further comprises: initializing the simulation times of all of automated guided vehicles and a current time (Fig. 8 Block 203 initialzing Emin to infinity and current time Nreach(n) in block 205, see at least, Col 14, Line 64 – Col 15 Line 9, Kageyama), determining whether the main automated guided vehicle arrives at the second control point; and returning the current time as a final arrival time when the main automated guided vehicle arrives at the second control point (Fig. 8 block 205 arriving at target position (second control point), see at least, Col 14, Line 64 – Col 15 Line 14, Kageyama).
Kageyama does not explicitly teach determining a single route as a final route of the main automated guided vehicle when a total number of routes from the first control point to the second control point is one wherein the predicting of the moving time of the main automated guided vehicle comprises checking a crossing automated guided vehicle crossing a same intersection with the main automated guided vehicle, wherein one of the main automated guided vehicle and the crossing automated guided vehicle, which has a longer simulation time, obtains a priority.
Kurokawa, directed to a control system for assisted and autonomous driving teaches, determining a single route as a final route of the main automated guided vehicle when a total number of routes from the first control point to the second control point is one (see at least [¶ 31, Kurokawa]: “If only one route is generated by the candidate route generation unit 151, the route determination unit 154 determines this route as the route to be traveled by the vehicle 10”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kageyama’s method of selecting a final route to incorporate the teachings of Kurokawa which teaches determining a single route as a final route of the main automated guided vehicle when a total number of routes from the first control point to the second control point is one since they are both related to routing autonomous vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Kurokawa would optimize the overall system by selecting a final route so the vehicle can get to its destination more quickly.
An, directed to automatic driving teaches, checking a crossing automated guided vehicle crossing a same intersection with the main automated guided vehicle. (See at least [¶ 79, Fig. 3, An]: “As shown in FIG3, the current vehicle 6 is traveling along path ②. During the traveling process, the server may send the position information and speed information of the first other vehicle 3 and the second other vehicle 4 on path ① intersecting with path ② to the current vehicle 6 in advance. After the current vehicle 6 receives the position information and speed information of the first other vehicle 3 and the second other vehicle 4, it can calculate the prohibited area, cooperative area and warning area of the first other vehicle 3 and the second other vehicle 4, and avoid obstacles in advance, thereby ensuring the driving safety of the current vehicle 6”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention Kageyama and Kurokawa’s to incorporate the teachings of An which teaches checking a crossing automated guided vehicle crossing a same intersection with the main automated guided vehicle since they are both related to autonomous vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of An would optimize the overall system by simulating route activity that intersect with other vehicles to take into account waiting time at intersections and following traffic laws to avoid collisions with other vehicles.
Nanri, directed to a traveling assistance method acquires driving characteristics of another vehicle around a host vehicle teaches, wherein one of the main automated guided vehicle and the crossing automated guided vehicle, which has a longer simulation time, obtains a priority, (Fig. 6 depicts the host vehicle 51 (main automated guided vehicle) has a higher priority on the road over the other vehicle 52 (crossing automated guided vehicle) and the host vehicle 51 has a longer reaching time Ta (simulation time) than reaching time Tb (simulation time) of the other vehicle, see at least [¶ 91, Nanri).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention Kageyama, Kurokawa and An to incorporate the teachings of Nanri which wherein one of the main automated guided vehicle and the crossing automated guided vehicle, which has a longer simulation time, obtains a priority, since they are both related to autonomous vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Nanri increase safety and awareness of the host vehicle operating around other vehicles and “improve the accuracy of detecting the action of the other vehicle”, (¶5, Nanri).
Regarding Claim 2, Kageyama in view of Kurokawa, An and Nanri teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the predicting of the moving time of the main automated guided vehicle comprises (re-claim 2) determining the current positions of automated guided vehicles in the unmanned transport system and the simulation times for the automated guided vehicles in the unmanned transport system (Fig. 11(a) shows calculating The waiting time for each vehicle, takes into account the current positions of all the vehicles to determine the order which the vehicle is in line, and the simulation times which is the working time (Ts) for each vehicle in the transport system, see at least, Col 18, Line 34-57, Kageyama).
Regarding Claim 3, Kageyama in view of Kurokawa, An and Nanri teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the predicting of the moving time of the main automated guided vehicle comprises checking automated guided vehicles positioned on a route from a current position to a destination for each of automated guided vehicles in the unmanned transport system (Fig. 11(a) shows calculating The waiting time for each vehicle, takes into account the current positions of all the vehicles (40, 30’ and 30) to a target position which is the destination for each of the AGVs, see at least, Col 18, Line 34-57, Kageyama).
Regarding Claim 6, Kageyama in view of Kurokawa, An and Nanri teaches, The method of claim 1wherein the first control point is a control point right after a starting point; and wherein the second control point is a control point right before a destination (travel commands received by vehicles 30, 30’ and 40 travel from their current positions which must include a first control point right after the current position, along a travel route to a target position in a waiting area which is a control point right before a destination which is the loader/hopper, see at least, Col 14, Line 13-25, Kageyama).
Regarding Claim 7, Kageyama in view of Kurokawa, An and Nanri teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the first control point is a control point right after a starting point; and wherein the second control point is a control point of a destination (travel commands received by vehicles 30, 30’ and 40 travel from their current positions which must include a first control point right after the current position, along a travel route to a target position which is a second control point of a destination, see at least, Col 14, Line 13-25, Kageyama).
Regarding Claim 16, Kageyama in view of Kurokawa, An and Nanri teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the work includes a first work in which the main automated guided vehicle moves to a starting point and a second work in which the main automated guided vehicle moves from the starting point to a destination (Fig. 1(b) depicts vehicles having to stop and wait at worksite 60a, where the first work is traveling to the worksite in a waiting area which is interpreted as the starting point, and a second work in which the vehicle performs a loading/unloading work at the loader 60 which it must move from the waiting area to the loader which is the destination, see at least, Col4 line 64 – Col 5 line 20, Kageyama).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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 on (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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights