DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-14 are pending, and claims dated 10/24/2025 are being examined.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims were indicated allowable if rewritten to overcome the § 112(b) rejections, but the § 112(b) rejections, as raised in the Advisory Action mailed 10/01/2025 are not fully addressed. The Examiner reiterates the § 112(b) rejections, and appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Objections
New claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality: in line 7: “unmanned vehicles” should be “the unmanned vehicles” since lines 3-4 recite “a width of unmanned vehicles” and it appears line 7 is referring to the same unmanned vehicles. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is indefinite for the reasons as discussed in the advisory action mailed 10/01/2025. Specifically, lines 3-5 of claim 1 defines a traveling area “comprises a first traveling area having a first track width and a second traveling area having a second track width narrower than the first track width”. Thus, claim 1 requires the traveling area to comprise two different track widths. However, lines 8-9 of claim 1 then recites “a track width indicating a width of the traveling area”. It is not clear whether said “track width” is referring to the “first track width” and/or the “second track width” or is referring to a different track width. For examination purposes, said track width is interpreted as “the first track width and the second track width of the traveling area”.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 12 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. For example, claim 2 compares the first vehicle width to the track width, but it is not clear if “the first vehicle width” is being compared to the “first track width” and/or the “second track width” or to a different track width.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is indefinite for the reasons as discussed in the advisory action mailed 10/01/2025. Specifically, line 5 of claim 4 recites “determine that the unmanned vehicle can enter the traveling area”, but it is not clear whether “the unmanned vehicle” is referring to the “first unmanned vehicle” or “the second unmanned vehicle”. Based on SB7 of FIG. 11 of Applicant’s drawings, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “determine that the second unmanned vehicle can enter the second traveling area”. However, with this interpretation, appropriate correction may also be required earlier in claim 3 and 4 to change “the unmanned vehicles” to “the second unmanned vehicle”. Alternatively, it is not clear whether this limitation should be “determine that the unmanned vehicles can enter the traveling area”. Appropriate correction is requested.
Regarding claim 7, similar to claim 1, claim 7 requires the traveling area to comprise two different track widths. However, lines 3-4 of claim 7 recites “a track width indicating a width of the traveling area”. It is not clear whether said “track width” is referring to the “first track width” and/or the “second track width” or is referring to a different track width. For examination purposes, said track width is interpreted as “a first track width and a second track width of the traveling area”.
Line 8 of claim 7 recites “the unmanned vehicle”, but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether the unmanned vehicle is referring to “the unmanned vehicles”, the later recited “first unmanned vehicle”, or the later recited “the second unmanned vehicle”. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “the unmanned vehicles”. Appropriate correction is requested.
Claims 8-10 and 13 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 7, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. For example, claim 8 compares the first vehicle width to the track width, but it is not clear if “the first vehicle width” is being compared to the “first track width” and/or the “second track width” or to a different track width.
Regarding claim 10, line 3 of claim 10 recites “the unmanned vehicle”, but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether the unmanned vehicle is referring to “the unmanned vehicles”, the later recited “first unmanned vehicle”, or the later recited “the second unmanned vehicle”. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “the unmanned vehicles”. Alternatively, based on SB7 of FIG. 11 of Applicant’s drawings, it is not clear whether this limitation should be “determine that the second unmanned vehicle can enter the second traveling area”. However, with this interpretation, appropriate correction may also be required earlier in the claim 9 to change “the unmanned vehicles” to “the second unmanned vehicle”. Appropriate correction is requested.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action. Claim 14 is allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically “wherein the traveling area comprises a first traveling area having a first track width and a second traveling area having a second track width narrower than the first track width, wherein the second traveling area branches from the first traveling area at an intersection”. The closest prior arts Nishijima et al. (US-20100292883-A1), Kinoshita et al. (JP-2015031533-A), and Yamashita et al. (US-20240168496-A1) suggest or teach a first unmanned vehicle having a first vehicle width and a second unmanned vehicle having a second vehicle width narrower than the first vehicle width; and guide the first unmanned vehicle such that the first unmanned vehicle enters the first traveling area and does not enter the second traveling area and guides the second unmanned vehicle such that the second unmanned vehicle enters each of the first traveling area and the second traveling area (see at least rejection of claims 5 and 11 in the Office Action mailed 02/04/2025).
However, the further defining of the traveling area, specifically the first and second traveling areas to resemble that of Applicant’s FIG. 4 (“branches…” and “intersection…”) is not taught or suggested by the prior art. With the amendments, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the first and second traveling areas to be smaller and larger areas respectively of a single area is not applicable. Claims 7 and 14 are similarly allowed. The dependent claims are also potentially allowable as they are dependent on the potentially allowable independent claims and would contain all the limitations/features of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20220342422-A1: Yasuda, relevant to new claim 14 describes a traveling area with passages similar to that of the invention in FIG. 7. However, Yasuda is silent as to a defining of widths of the passages and does not describe the guidance of the unmanned vehicles as claimed in the last paragraph of claim 14. There is no consideration in Yasuda to selectively allow one unmanned vehicle to enter a passage while not allowing a different unmanned vehicle enter the passage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662