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 Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-22, and 24-25 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The specification was objected to due to minor informalities in the abstract and because the title was not descriptive. Applicant amended the title accordingly; as such, the specification objection has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 14, and 24 were objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; as such, the claim objection has been withdrawn.
Elements of claims 1-20 and 27 were interpreted as allegedly invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In light of the amendments, the interpretation has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as allegedly being indefinite. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; as such, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-22, 24, and 25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; as such, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on pages 16-18 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9-11, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 3-7, 22, 25, and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hunt and Lee.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt of US 20190377350 A1, filed 06/12/2018, hereinafter “Hunt”, in view of Lee of KR 20090109887 A, filed 04/16/2008, hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 1, Hunt teaches:
A system for transporting an object loaded in a moving body at a first point, (See at least Abstract: “Systems and methods are provided herein for operating an autonomous vehicle in the presence of hazardous materials. The autonomous vehicle is operated in travel along a selected route. A determination is made, using a sensor, that a hazardous material is present inside the autonomous vehicle during the operation of the autonomous vehicle. In response, a setting of the autonomous vehicle is changed to counteract the presence of the hazardous material inside the autonomous vehicle. Additionally, also in response, a modified route is calculated, the modified route addressing the presence of the hazardous material inside the autonomous vehicle. Then, the autonomous vehicle is operated to travel along the modified route.” See also [0079] regarding transporting a passenger to a first-responder facility.)
the system comprising: a processor configured to determine a harmful degree of the object loaded in the moving body to a living organism, (See at least [0082]: “Process 400 continues at 404, where the processing circuitry may determine, using a sensor or sensors (e.g., one or more of the sensors 158 of FIG. 1B), whether hazardous material is present inside the autonomous vehicle during the operation of the autonomous vehicle. For example, the processing circuitry may receive an input from a gas sensor indicating a concentration level of certain chemical compound…”)
create a transport plan for the object based on the determined harmful degree of the object, (See at least [0088]: “…at 406, in response to determining the presence of a hazardous material, the processing circuitry may enter into a hazard mode. In some embodiments, while in a hazard mode, the processing circuitry may take one or more actions designed to mitigate or address the presence of a hazardous material…” & [0091]: “…at 408, the processing circuitry may calculate a modified route, wherein the modified route addresses the presence of the hazardous material inside the autonomous vehicle…”. See also [0093] & [0116] regarding adding a stop to the vehicle route, such as a stopping location for the vehicle to pull over or a car wash facility.)
create a movement plan for the moving body based on the created transport plan, and (See at least [0117]: “At 712, the processing circuitry may calculate a route from the current location of the autonomous vehicle to the cleaning facility destination…the processing circuitry may then include the calculated route as a part of the modified route…”)
send the created movement plan to the moving body, the moving body configured to move by following the created movement plan; and (See at least [0094]: “…the processing circuitry may operate the autonomous vehicle to travel along the modified route. For example, the processing circuitry may drive the autonomous vehicle to the new stop or to the new destination added to the modified route…” & [0080]: “…the processing circuitry may be a part of server 208 of FIG. 2, which may control autonomous vehicle 202 via a command transmitted over network 204…”)
Hunt does not explicitly teach:
a database storing environment information on a harmful degree of environment in each area,
wherein the processor creates the movement plan further based on the environment information, the movement plan including a path that avoids a harmful area.
Lee teaches:
a database storing environment information on a harmful degree of environment in each area, (See at least pg. 11: “…the safety assessment method includes…a step of calculating accident occurrence probability statistics (S22)…”, pg. 19: “…Safety assessment and economic evaluation data are stored in digitized form and can be used as data for each transport…” & pg. 14: “…Accident statistics by region or section can be used as statistical data for reference when assessing risk. Accident statistics are used to analyze the cause of accidents by utilizing information such as accident situations and accident-prone sections, and extracting data. As a risk assessment factor, the cause of the accident can be analyzed and divided into criteria such as loading conditions of radioactive waste, weather conditions, time zone, and transportation route…”)
wherein the processor creates the movement plan further based on the environment information, the movement plan including a path that avoids a harmful area. (See at least pgs. 20-21: “…Waypoints 1 (m1), waypoints 2 (m2) and waypoints 3 (m3) can be selected on the sea between the source (S1, S2, S3) and the destination (D), and an appropriate number of waypoints may be added as needed…After selecting the waypoint, risk factors are analyzed. The risk factor may be, for example, an accident occurrence area (a1 to a9), and a route is selected by avoiding the accident occurrence area (a1 to a9)”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Hunt’s system with Lee’s technique of including a database storing environment information on a harmful degree of environment in each area and creating the movement plan based on the environment information, the movement plan including a path that avoids a harmful area. Doing so would be obvious “to minimize various risk situations that may occur when transporting radioactive waste via land and sea transport routes, and to provide an optimal method for transporting radioactive waste that is both safe and economical” (See pg. 4 of Lee).
Regarding claim 3, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hunt additionally teaches:
wherein the processor creates the transport plan for reducing the harmful degree of the object when the determined harmful degree of the object is equal to or greater than a first threshold value. (See at least Fig. 7, [0098-0101]: “…at 512, the processing circuitry may change a setting of the autonomous vehicle as described in step 408 of FIG. 4. In some embodiments, at 518, the processing circuitry may also or alternatively modify the route of the autonomous vehicle as described in steps 410-412 of FIG. 4…if the concentration of the certain chemical compound exceeds the lower threshold (but does not exceed the higher threshold), the processing circuitry may proceed to step 508… At 508, the processing circuitry may present an override option to the user…at 510, the processing circuitry may determine whether the user has activated the override option…If the override option was not activated, the processing circuitry may proceed to step 512…”)
Regarding claim 4, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hunt additionally teaches:
wherein the system is capable of transporting the object loaded in the moving body at the first point to a second point, and (See at least [0079]: “…processor 312 may redirect vehicle 300 to a first-responder facility (e.g., an emergency room) or to a cleaning facility (e.g., a car wash). In some embodiments, such redirection may be performed after the additional stop is made. In some embodiments, such redirection may be performed without an additional stop (e.g., when a passenger needs to be delivered to the first-responder facility).”)
the processor creates the transport plan including transporting of the object to the second point. (See at least [0099]: “…if the concentration of the certain chemical compound does not exceed the lower threshold, the processing circuitry may proceed back to step 502 and continue operating the autonomous vehicle along the selected route using the existing settings…”)
Regarding claim 5, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hunt additionally teaches:
wherein the system is capable of transporting the object loaded in the moving body at the first point to a second point, and (See at least [0079]: “…processor 312 may redirect vehicle 300 to a first-responder facility (e.g., an emergency room) or to a cleaning facility (e.g., a car wash). In some embodiments, such redirection may be performed after the additional stop is made. In some embodiments, such redirection may be performed without an additional stop (e.g., when a passenger needs to be delivered to the first-responder facility).”)
the processor creates the transport plan for aborting transporting of the object to the second point when the determined harmful degree of the object is equal to or greater than a second threshold value. (See at least [0097]: “…if the concentration of a particular chemical compound exceeds the higher threshold, process 500 may go directly to step 512. For example, when the concentration of urea gets to be very high, the processing circuitry may determine that the ride is too dangerous to continue regardless of the wishes of the user.”)
Regarding claim 7, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hunt additionally teaches:
further comprising: a display owned by a sender of the object, a receiver of the object, or an administrator of the system, (See at least [0094]: “…the processing circuitry may also warn the user regarding the change in destination. For example, a warning may be displayed in display 154 of FIG. 1 or on user device 206 of FIG. 2…”)
wherein the processor is further configured to cause the display to display at least a part of the created transport plan. (See at least [0094]: “…the processing circuitry may also warn the user regarding the change in destination. For example, a warning may be displayed in display 154 of FIG. 1 or on user device 206 of FIG. 2…”)
Regarding claim 9, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hunt additionally teaches:
wherein the moving body includes a sensor configured to acquire transport object state information which is information on a state of the object loaded in the moving body. (See at least [0039]: “…autonomous vehicle 100 may include gas sensors (e.g., spectrum analyzers) configured to detect the presence of a specific gas and the concentration levels of that gas. In some embodiments, autonomous vehicle 100 may include one or more pressure sensors that may detect a presence of pressure at various points in the vehicle. In some embodiments, autonomous vehicle 100 may include one or more weight sensors that may detect weight at specific points in autonomous vehicle 100 or the total weight of autonomous vehicle 100.”)
Regarding claim 10, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Hunt additionally teaches:
wherein the processor determines the harmful degree based on the transport object state information acquired by the sensor. (See at least [0082]: “…the processing circuitry may receive an input from a gas sensor indicating a concentration level of certain chemical compound. In some embodiments, the processing circuitry may determine whether a presence of a biohazard when the concentration level of a chemical compound exceeds a threshold level set for that chemical compound.”)
Regarding claim 21, Hunt teaches:
A method for transporting an object loaded in a moving body at a first point, (See at least Abstract: “Systems and methods are provided herein for operating an autonomous vehicle in the presence of hazardous materials. The autonomous vehicle is operated in travel along a selected route. A determination is made, using a sensor, that a hazardous material is present inside the autonomous vehicle during the operation of the autonomous vehicle. In response, a setting of the autonomous vehicle is changed to counteract the presence of the hazardous material inside the autonomous vehicle. Additionally, also in response, a modified route is calculated, the modified route addressing the presence of the hazardous material inside the autonomous vehicle. Then, the autonomous vehicle is operated to travel along the modified route.” See also [0079] regarding transporting a passenger to a first-responder facility.)
determining a harmful degree of the object loaded in the moving body to a living organism; (See at least [0082]: “Process 400 continues at 404, where the processing circuitry may determine, using a sensor or sensors (e.g., one or more of the sensors 158 of FIG. 1B), whether hazardous material is present inside the autonomous vehicle during the operation of the autonomous vehicle. For example, the processing circuitry may receive an input from a gas sensor indicating a concentration level of certain chemical compound…”)
creating a transport plan for the object based on the determined harmful degree of the object; (See at least [0088]: “…at 406, in response to determining the presence of a hazardous material, the processing circuitry may enter into a hazard mode. In some embodiments, while in a hazard mode, the processing circuitry may take one or more actions designed to mitigate or address the presence of a hazardous material…” & [0091]: “…at 408, the processing circuitry may calculate a modified route, wherein the modified route addresses the presence of the hazardous material inside the autonomous vehicle…”. See also [0093] & [0116] regarding adding a stop to the vehicle route, such as a stopping location for the vehicle to pull over or a car wash facility.)
creating a movement plan for the moving body based on the created transport plan; (See at least [0117]: “At 712, the processing circuitry may calculate a route from the current location of the autonomous vehicle to the cleaning facility destination…the processing circuitry may then include the calculated route as a part of the modified route…”)
sending the created movement plan to the moving body, the moving body configured to move by following the created movement plan; and (See at least [0094]: “…the processing circuitry may operate the autonomous vehicle to travel along the modified route. For example, the processing circuitry may drive the autonomous vehicle to the new stop or to the new destination added to the modified route…” & [0080]: “…the processing circuitry may be a part of server 208 of FIG. 2, which may control autonomous vehicle 202 via a command transmitted over network 204…”)
Hunt does not explicitly teach:
creating the movement plan further based on environment information on a harmful degree of environment in each area stored in a database,
the movement plan including a path that avoids a harmful area.
Lee teaches:
creating the movement plan further based on environment information on a harmful degree of environment in each area stored in a database, (See at least pg. 11: “…the safety assessment method includes…a step of calculating accident occurrence probability statistics (S22)…”, pg. 19: “…Safety assessment and economic evaluation data are stored in digitized form and can be used as data for each transport…” & pg. 14: “…Accident statistics by region or section can be used as statistical data for reference when assessing risk. Accident statistics are used to analyze the cause of accidents by utilizing information such as accident situations and accident-prone sections, and extracting data. As a risk assessment factor, the cause of the accident can be analyzed and divided into criteria such as loading conditions of radioactive waste, weather conditions, time zone, and transportation route…”)
the movement plan including a path that avoids a harmful area. (See at least pgs. 20-21: “…Waypoints 1 (m1), waypoints 2 (m2) and waypoints 3 (m3) can be selected on the sea between the source (S1, S2, S3) and the destination (D), and an appropriate number of waypoints may be added as needed…After selecting the waypoint, risk factors are analyzed. The risk factor may be, for example, an accident occurrence area (a1 to a9), and a route is selected by avoiding the accident occurrence area (a1 to a9)”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Hunt’s system with Lee’s technique of including a database storing environment information on a harmful degree of environment in each area and creating the movement plan based on the environment information, the movement plan including a path that avoids a harmful area. Doing so would be obvious “to minimize various risk situations that may occur when transporting radioactive waste via land and sea transport routes, and to provide an optimal method for transporting radioactive waste that is both safe and economical” (See pg. 4 of Lee).
Regarding claim 24, Hunt teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for transporting an object loaded in a moving body at a first point, (See at least Abstract: “Systems and methods are provided herein for operating an autonomous vehicle in the presence of hazardous materials. The autonomous vehicle is operated in travel along a selected route. A determination is made, using a sensor, that a hazardous material is present inside the autonomous vehicle during the operation of the autonomous vehicle. In response, a setting of the autonomous vehicle is changed to counteract the presence of the hazardous material inside the autonomous vehicle. Additionally, also in response, a modified route is calculated, the modified route addressing the presence of the hazardous material inside the autonomous vehicle. Then, the autonomous vehicle is operated to travel along the modified route.” See also [0079] regarding transporting a passenger to a first-responder facility.)
the program configured to execute a method, the method comprising: determining a harmful degree of the object loaded in the moving body to a living organism; (See at least [0082]: “Process 400 continues at 404, where the processing circuitry may determine, using a sensor or sensors (e.g., one or more of the sensors 158 of FIG. 1B), whether hazardous material is present inside the autonomous vehicle during the operation of the autonomous vehicle. For example, the processing circuitry may receive an input from a gas sensor indicating a concentration level of certain chemical compound…”)
creating a transport plan for the object based on the determined harmful degree of the object; (See at least [0088]: “…at 406, in response to determining the presence of a hazardous material, the processing circuitry may enter into a hazard mode. In some embodiments, while in a hazard mode, the processing circuitry may take one or more actions designed to mitigate or address the presence of a hazardous material…” & [0091]: “…at 408, the processing circuitry may calculate a modified route, wherein the modified route addresses the presence of the hazardous material inside the autonomous vehicle…”. See also [0093] & [0116] regarding adding a stop to the vehicle route, such as a stopping location for the vehicle to pull over or a car wash facility.)
creating a movement plan for the moving body based on the created transport plan; (See at least [0117]: “At 712, the processing circuitry may calculate a route from the current location of the autonomous vehicle to the cleaning facility destination…the processing circuitry may then include the calculated route as a part of the modified route…”)
sending the created movement plan to the moving body, the moving body configured to move by following the created movement plan; and (See at least [0094]: “…the processing circuitry may operate the autonomous vehicle to travel along the modified route. For example, the processing circuitry may drive the autonomous vehicle to the new stop or to the new destination added to the modified route…” & [0080]: “…the processing circuitry may be a part of server 208 of FIG. 2, which may control autonomous vehicle 202 via a command transmitted over network 204…”)
Hunt does not explicitly teach:
creating the movement plan further based on environment information on a harmful degree of environment in each area stored in a database,
the movement plan including a path that avoids a harmful area.
Lee teaches:
creating the movement plan further based on environment information on a harmful degree of environment in each area stored in a database, (See at least pg. 11: “…the safety assessment method includes…a step of calculating accident occurrence probability statistics (S22)…”, pg. 19: “…Safety assessment and economic evaluation data are stored in digitized form and can be used as data for each transport…” & pg. 14: “…Accident statistics by region or section can be used as statistical data for reference when assessing risk. Accident statistics are used to analyze the cause of accidents by utilizing information such as accident situations and accident-prone sections, and extracting data. As a risk assessment factor, the cause of the accident can be analyzed and divided into criteria such as loading conditions of radioactive waste, weather conditions, time zone, and transportation route…”)
the movement plan including a path that avoids a harmful area. (See at least pgs. 20-21: “…Waypoints 1 (m1), waypoints 2 (m2) and waypoints 3 (m3) can be selected on the sea between the source (S1, S2, S3) and the destination (D), and an appropriate number of waypoints may be added as needed…After selecting the waypoint, risk factors are analyzed. The risk factor may be, for example, an accident occurrence area (a1 to a9), and a route is selected by avoiding the accident occurrence area (a1 to a9)”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Hunt’s system with Lee’s technique of including a database storing environment information on a harmful degree of environment in each area and creating the movement plan based on the environment information, the movement plan including a path that avoids a harmful area. Doing so would be obvious “to minimize various risk situations that may occur when transporting radioactive waste via land and sea transport routes, and to provide an optimal method for transporting radioactive waste that is both safe and economical” (See pg. 4 of Lee).
Claim(s) 6, 12, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Lee and further in view of Hollingsworth of US 20080215345 A1, filed 08/21/2006, hereinafter “Hollingsworth”.
Regarding claim 6, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hunt and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor creates the transport plan for discarding the object when the determined harmful degree of the object is equal to or greater than a third threshold value.
Hollingsworth teaches:
wherein the processor creates the transport plan for discarding the object when the determined harmful degree of the object is equal to or greater than a third threshold value. (See at least [0038]: “Additionally, as a further example, events 52 can be automatically generated based on accumulated data such as data accumulated for a given facility. As an example of this, data gathered a particular facility may provide a cumulative total of spilled materials since the last removal event. When the total (e.g., the amount of hazardous waste on hand) for a given material, class of materials, etc. reaches a determined threshold, an event can be generated to schedule removal and disposal of the accumulated materials.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Hunt and Lee’s system with Hollingsworth’s technique of creating the transport plan for discarding the object when the harmful degree of the object determined by the harmful degree determination unit is equal to or greater than a third threshold value. Doing so would be obvious to “…coordinate an appropriate remediation step…” (See [0046] of Hollingsworth).
Regarding claim 12, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Hunt and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor determines the harmful degree based on the sender state information acquired by the sensor.
Hollingsworth teaches:
wherein the processor determines the harmful degree based on the sender state information acquired by the sensor. (See at least [0038]: “Additionally, as a further example, events 52 can be automatically generated based on accumulated data such as data accumulated for a given facility. As an example of this, data gathered a particular facility may provide a cumulative total of spilled materials since the last removal event. When the total (e.g., the amount of hazardous waste on hand) for a given material, class of materials, etc. reaches a determined threshold, an event can be generated to schedule removal and disposal of the accumulated materials.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Hunt and Lee’s system with Hollingsworth’s technique of determining the harmful degree based on sender state information acquired by the sender state acquisition unit. Doing so would be obvious to “…coordinate an appropriate remediation step…” (See [0046] of Hollingsworth).
Regarding claim 22, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Hunt and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising: acquiring sender state information which is information on a state of a sender of the object, wherein the harmful degree to the living organism of the object loaded in the moving body is determined based on the acquired sender state information.
Hollingsworth teaches:
further comprising: acquiring sender state information which is information on a state of a sender of the object, wherein the harmful degree to the living organism of the object loaded in the moving body is determined based on the acquired sender state information. (See at least [0037-0038]: “Another example event is that of readying a hazardous material for usage or for shipment…events 52 can be automatically generated based on accumulated data such as data accumulated for a given facility. As an example of this, data gathered a particular facility may provide a cumulative total of spilled materials since the last removal event. When the total (e.g., the amount of hazardous waste on hand) for a given material, class of materials, etc. reaches a determined threshold, an event can be generated to schedule removal and disposal of the accumulated materials.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Hunt and Lee’s method with Hollingsworth’s technique of determining the harmful degree based on sender state information acquired by the sender state acquisition unit. Doing so would be obvious to “…coordinate an appropriate remediation step…” (See [0046] of Hollingsworth).
Regarding claim 25, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 24 as discussed above.
Hunt and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the method further comprises: acquiring sender state information which is information on a state of a sender of the object, wherein the harmful degree is determined based on the acquired sender state information.
Hollingsworth teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: acquiring sender state information which is information on a state of a sender of the object, wherein the harmful degree is determined based on the acquired sender state information. (See at least [0037-0038]: “Another example event is that of readying a hazardous material for usage or for shipment…events 52 can be automatically generated based on accumulated data such as data accumulated for a given facility. As an example of this, data gathered a particular facility may provide a cumulative total of spilled materials since the last removal event. When the total (e.g., the amount of hazardous waste on hand) for a given material, class of materials, etc. reaches a determined threshold, an event can be generated to schedule removal and disposal of the accumulated materials.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Hunt and Lee’s method with Hollingsworth’s technique of determining the harmful degree based on sender state information acquired by the sender state acquisition unit. Doing so would be obvious to “…coordinate an appropriate remediation step…” (See [0046] of Hollingsworth).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Lee and further in view of Suyama of JP 2015099035 A, filed 11/18/2013, hereinafter “Suyama”.
Regarding claim 11, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hunt and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising: a sensor configured to acquire sender state information which is information on a state of a sender who has put the object in the moving body at the first point.
Suyama teaches:
further comprising: a sensor configured to acquire sender state information which is information on a state of a sender who has put the object in the moving body at the first point. (See at least [0015]: “An information medium such as an IC tag and/or a code label (a label having a two-dimensional code such as a barcode or a QR code (registered trademark)) is attached to the flexible container. This information medium records information such as the flexible container number, the type of removed material (soil, undergrowth, fallen leaves, chips, etc.), the location where the removed material was generated (including the name of the district, removal area such as forests, farmland, residential land, roads, etc., and removal location), the date (date of loading), and weight (kg).”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Hunt and Lee’s system with Suyama’s technique of including sensor configured to acquire sender state information on a state of a sensor who has put the object in the moving body at the first point. Doing so would be obvious since “it is desirable to record the measurement data in association with the container number, which is written on an IC tag or code label that is previously attached to each container” (See [0033] of Suyama).
Claim(s) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Lee and further in view of Tiwari of US 20220028556 A1, filed 07/22/2020, hereinafter “Tiwari”.
Regarding claim 13, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hunt additionally teaches:
further comprising: a display owned by a sender of the object, a receiver of the object, or an administrator of the system, (See at least [0094]: “…the processing circuitry may also warn the user regarding the change in destination. For example, a warning may be displayed in display 154 of FIG. 1 or on user device 206 of FIG. 2…”)
Hunt and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein when the determined harmful degree of the object is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, the processor causes the display to display a determination result of the harmful degree of the object or information indicating that the harmful degree of the object is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold value.
Tiwari teaches:
wherein when the determined harmful degree of the object is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, the processor causes the display to display a determination result of the harmful degree of the object or information indicating that the harmful degree of the object is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold value. (See at least [0043]: “…The health risk assessment module 113 may include computer-readable instructions that when executed by the processor(s) 110 cause the processor(s) to generate any of a variety of audible and/or visual alerts and messages directed to informing vehicle occupants, prospective occupants, and/or other entities that a first health status parameter related to a particular user or prospective user above the first threshold, indicating that infection prevention measures may be called for…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Hunt and Lee’s system with Tiwari’s technique of notifying of a determination result of the harmful degree determination unit. Doing so would be obvious for “…determining if a need exists for infection prevention measures…” (See [0009] of Tiwari).
Regarding claim 14, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hunt and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor further determines a harmful degree of the moving body in which the object is loaded to the living organism.
Tiwari teaches:
wherein the processor further determines a harmful degree of the moving body in which the object is loaded to the living organism. (See at least [0040]: “…The health risk assessment module 113 may include computer-readable instructions that when executed by the processor(s) 110 cause the processor(s) 110 to attempt to acquire information regarding a travel history of the user and, using acquired travel history information, determine a value of a first health status parameter. The first health status parameter may represent a probability or likelihood that the user became infected during a previous ride with a communicable disease by riding in another vehicle that was also occupied, either before being occupied by the user or contemporaneously with being occupied by the user, by another person who was infected or contagious with the communicable disease. A user thus infected may infect a driver or other current occupant of the vehicle 100 or may spread bacteria or a virus to interior surfaces of the vehicle 100, which may infect a future occupant of the vehicle. In one or more arrangements, an algorithm for calculating the value of the first health status parameter may be configured so that circumstances that indicate an increased probability that the user might be infected will tend to increase the calculated value of the first health status parameter.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Hunt and Lee’s system with Tiwari’s technique of determining a harmful degree to the living organism of the moving body in which the object is loaded. Doing so would be obvious for “…determining if a need exists for infection prevention measures…” (See [0009] of Tiwari).
Regarding claim 15, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hunt additionally teaches:
wherein the object is a person, and (See at least [0079]: “…such redirection may be performed without an additional stop (e.g., when a passenger needs to be delivered to the first-responder facility)”)
Hunt and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
the harmful degree determination unit determines a harmful degree to another person of the person loaded in the moving body at the first point.
Tiwari teaches:
the harmful degree determination unit determines a harmful degree to another person of the person loaded in the moving body at the first point. (See at least [0040]: “The vehicle 100 can include a health risk assessment module 113. The health risk assessment module 113 may include computer-readable instructions that when executed by the processor(s) 110 cause the processor(s) 110 to attempt to acquire information regarding a travel history of the user and, using acquired travel history information, determine a value of a first health status parameter. The first health status parameter may represent a probability or likelihood that the user became infected during a previous ride with a communicable disease by riding in another vehicle that was also occupied, either before being occupied by the user or contemporaneously with being occupied by the user, by another person who was infected or contagious with the communicable disease. A user thus infected may infect a driver or other current occupant of the vehicle 100 or may spread bacteria or a virus to interior surfaces of the vehicle 100, which may infect a future occupant of the vehicle. In one or more arrangements, an algorithm for calculating the value of the first health status parameter may be configured so that circumstances that indicate an increased probability that the user might be infected will tend to increase the calculated value of the first health status parameter.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Hunt and Lee’s system with Tiwari’s technique of determining a harmful degree to another person of the person loaded in the moving body at the first point. Doing so would be obvious for “…determining if a need exists for infection prevention measures…” (See [0009] of Tiwari).
Regarding claim 16, Hunt, Lee, and Tiwari in combination teach all the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above.
Tiwari additionally teaches:
wherein the another person is loaded in the moving body at a third point. (See at least [0040]: “…A user thus infected may infect a driver or other current occupant of the vehicle 100 or may spread bacteria or a virus to interior surfaces of the vehicle 100, which may infect a future occupant of the vehicle…”)
Regarding claim 17, Hunt, Lee, and Tiwari in combination teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Tiwari additionally teaches:
wherein the processor determines that the harmful degree of the person loaded in the moving body at the first point is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, the system prohibits loading the another person in the moving body at the third point after loading the person at the first point. (See at least [0041-0042]: “The health risk assessment module 113 may include computer-readable instructions that when executed by the processor(s) 110 cause the processor(s) to compare the value of the first health status parameter to a first threshold. The health risk assessment module 113 may include computer-readable instructions that when executed by the processor(s) 110 cause the processor(s) to, responsive to the value of the first parameter exceeding the threshold, control operation of the vehicle 100 to implement at least one infection prevention measure…In a particular example, the infection prevention measure may include generation by the vehicle 100 of an alert message configured to be perceivable by a prospective vehicle occupant. For example, the vehicle 100 may have recently been vacated by a user who has a relatively high probability of being infected, and the vehicle 100 may not have been adequately disinfected prior to picking up another scheduled ride. In addition, it may not have been possible to re-schedule the next user's ride. In this case, an audible alert may be generated and directed to the prospective user when the user reaches the vehicle 100 but before the user enters the vehicle. The prospective user may then have the options of declining the ride or taking other measures. In another example, infection prevention measure may include generation of an automated message to a scheduling facility canceling a scheduled vehicle rental or a ride of a prospective user if a first health status parameter associated with the user is determined to exceed a first threshold. The message may also be forwarded to the prospective user to allow the user to schedule a ride with another vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 18, Hunt, Lee, and Tiwari in combination teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Tiwari additionally teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine a harmed degree of the person loaded in the moving body at the first point harmed by the another person loaded in the moving body at the third point. (See at least [0040]: “The vehicle 100 can include a health risk assessment module 113. The health risk assessment module 113 may include computer-readable instructions that when executed by the processor(s) 110 cause the processor(s) 110 to attempt to acquire information regarding a travel history of the user and, using acquired travel history information, determine a value of a first health status parameter. The first health status parameter may represent a probability or likelihood that the user became infected during a previous ride with a communicable disease by riding in another vehicle that was also occupied, either before being occupied by the user or contemporaneously with being occupied by the user, by another person who was infected or contagious with the communicable disease. A user thus infected may infect a driver or other current occupant of the vehicle 100 or may spread bacteria or a virus to interior surfaces of the vehicle 100, which may infect a future occupant of the vehicle. In one or more arrangements, an algorithm for calculating the value of the first health status parameter may be configured so that circumstances that indicate an increased probability that the user might be infected will tend to increase the calculated value of the first health status parameter.” Any location or any point in time at which the another person has boarded the moving body is equivalent to a “third point”.)
Regarding claim 19, Hunt, Lee, and Tiwari in combination teach all the limitations of claim 18 as discussed above.
Tiwari additionally teaches:
wherein the processor determines the harmed degree based on at least one of the determined harmful degree of the person, an epidemic prevention state of the person, an epidemic prevention state of the another person, an epidemic prevention state of the moving body, a loading time during which both the person and the another person are loaded in the moving body at the same time, a loading distance that both the person and the another person travel while being loaded in the moving body at the same time, or a distance in the moving body between the person and the another person. (See at least [0046]: “In another aspect, the health risk assessment module 113 may include computer-readable instructions that when executed by the processor(s) 110 cause the processor(s) to attempt to determine, for each previous ride the user took, if a vehicle in which the previous ride occurred was disinfected after being occupied by a last occupant of the vehicle prior to the user occupying the vehicle for the previous ride. If the vehicle in which the user's previous ride occurred was disinfected after being used by the person prior to the user and the vehicle was thereafter not occupied until the user took the user's previous ride, then there should have been be no opportunity for the surfaces of the vehicle to become contaminated by another person prior to the previous ride by the user. This would decrease the risk that the user may be infected by contact with a vehicle that previously transported an infected person.”)
Regarding claim 20, Hunt and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hunt and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the harmful degree is an infection risk to the living organism from the object as an infection source.
Tiwari teaches:
wherein the harmful degree is an infection risk to the living organism from the object as an infection source. (See at least [0040]: “…The first health status parameter may represent a probability or likelihood that the user became infected during a previous ride with a communicable disease by riding in another vehicle that was also occupied, either before being occupied by the user or contemporaneously with being occupied by the user, by another person who was infected or contagious with the communicable disease. A user thus infected may infect a driver or other current occupant of the vehicle 100 or may spread bacteria or a virus to interior surfaces of the vehicle 100, which may infect a future occupant of the vehicle. In one or more arrangements, an algorithm for calculating the value of the first health status parameter may be configured so that circumstances that indicate an increased probability that the user might be infected will tend to increase the calculated value of the first health status parameter.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Hunt and Lee’s system with Tiwari’s technique of having the harmful degree be an infection risk to the living organism from the object as an infection source. Doing so would be obvious for “…determining if a need exists for infection prevention measures…” (See [0009] of Tiwari).
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 NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm PT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662