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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 September 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Claims 17-20 have been canceled therefore specification objection, 35 U.S.C. § 112f interpretation, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection for claims 17-20 are moot and withdrawn. Arguments and amendments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claim 1 and 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive and rejections set forth in office action of 16 July 2025 have been withdrawn.
Upon further examination of the claims Examiner cannot find in the specification any description for “simulation time” and will reject claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) for lack of written description requirement and corresponding indefiniteness. Cited paragraphs [0042], [0044], [0047] and [0048] from arguments posted 03 June 2025 do not describe simulation times in line with the amended claim 1 limitation: “wherein each of the simulation times refers to a time spent to perform a work assigned to a corresponding automated guided vehicle”.
Regarding arguments for 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1-2, 6-7 and 16, Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments and reformulates rejection set forth in office action of 16 July 2025 since it is not clear the meaning of “simulation time” and have applied Examiner’s closest interpretation of “simulation time”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-7 and 16 applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s) the steps/functions were performed for determining the simulation times of all of the automated guided vehicles wherein each of the simulation times refers to a time spent to perform a work assigned to a corresponding automated guided vehicle has not been disclosed in sufficient detail.
In this respect, the examiner looks to cited paragraphs [0042], [0044], [0047] and [0048] of the specification from arguments posted 03 June 2025 in order to find, if possible, support in sufficient detail. However, these passages apparently only describe desired results, and no algorithm(s) are apparently provided, in sufficient detail, for determining a simulation time wherein each of the simulation times refers to a time spent to perform a work assigned to a corresponding automated guided vehicle. The specification does not disclose the meaning of a simulation time and only that each AGV has a simulation time which is not clearly defined. Applicant has not described that simulation times refers to a time spent to perform a work assigned to a corresponding automated guided vehicle. The understanding of a simulation time of the AGV is essential to the heart of the invention but specification fails to describe what a simulation time is and how it is determined. For example, Block S3 of FIG. 5A recites “determining VSIMULTIME of all AGVs”, however that description is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only, if anything, described a desired result.
Accordingly, the Examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 it recites “simulation time”. It is unclear to the Examiner what exactly Applicant means by a “simulation time” and how one would determine one. The specification does not define the term and does provide sufficient clarification for what Applicant means/refers to. Applicant amended claim 1 to recite “wherein each of the simulation times refers to a time spent to perform a work assigned to a corresponding automated guided vehicle” however that description is not found in the specification interpretation of “simulation time” remains indefinite. Furthermore,
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 because it is not clear if the main automated guided vehicle or the crossing automated guided vehicle has a longer simulation time. It is unclear what that simulation time is. 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 and what simulation time.
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 time spent to perform a work assigned to a corresponding automated guided vehicle (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).
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
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