DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is drafted in response to amendments filed 09/03/2025. Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 17-19 are pending. Claims 11, 15-16, and 20 are cancelled, and claims 2-10 and 19 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 12-14, and 17-18 are rejected as cited below. This action is made FINAL.
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 .
Response to Claim Interpretation
Examiner withdraws the invocation of 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation in view of Applicant’s amendments. Examiner notes that invocation of 35 USC 112(f) is not a rejection, as described by Applicant on page 6 of remarks filed 09/03/2025, but merely a statement of claim interpretation made on the record.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Examiner withdraws all 35 USC 101 rejections in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Examiner withdraws all 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi in view of Blum et al. (US Pat. 11,619,938 B2; hereafter Blum).
Hitachi was cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Hitachi teaches:
A management system for an autonomous travel vehicle, comprising:
a processor (control server 310), the processor being configured to:
acquire a position (At least page 4, ¶ [0001] “Each of the excavator 200 and the dump truck 100 is equipped with a position calculation device that receives a positioning radio wave from the GPS satellite 50 and calculates the position of the host vehicle.” Excavator 200 is a work machine operated by an operator) of a work machine (Excavator 200) operated by an operator (At least page 4, ¶ [0002] “operator of the excavator 200”) and having a travel device (The travel device is implied in figures 1, 3, and 8 which show tracks and an engine exhaust outlet.);
determine a target position of the autonomous travel vehicle based on the position of the work machine (At least page 3, ¶ [0004] “a first work machine operating in a mine designates a stop target position and guides the second work machine toward the stop target position. In particular, in the present embodiment, the first work machine is an excavator, the second work machine is an autonomous traveling vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “dump truck”)”);
generate, based on a plurality of circulation positions, a travel path when the autonomous travel vehicle is circulated at a work site (At least page 9, ¶ [0006] “The dynamic path generation unit 311 c generates a dynamic path from the entrance of the loading place 61 to the loading position and a dynamic path from the loading position to the exit of the loading place 61.” And page 10, ¶ [0001] “The dump truck 100 autonomously travels along the dynamic path, and controls the approach support system according to the present invention from the autonomous travel along the dynamic path when the final approach is made to the loading position, that is, the dump truck.”).
Hitachi does not teach:
recognize a boarding state of a person in the autonomous travel vehicle
determine whether or not the autonomous travel vehicle is in a full state, where the full state refers to a state in which the number of passengers has reached a predetermined allowable number of people who can board the unmanned light vehicle, or a state in which the sum of the weights of the passengers has reached a predetermined allowable weight that can board the unmanned light vehicle; and
interrupt circulation of the autonomous travel vehicle and return the autonomous travel vehicle to a return point when it is determined that the autonomous travel vehicle is in the full state during the circulation of the autonomous travel vehicle
wherein at least one of the plurality of circulation positions is a getting-on/off position of the operator.
However, Blum, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
recognize a boarding state of a person in the autonomous travel vehicle (At least ¶ 7, line 45 “After the guest has boarded the autonomous vehicle (block 98), the system 14 receives an indication that the guest is in or on the autonomous vehicle. The indication may be via an on-board sensor of the autonomous vehicle (pressure/weight sensor, camera, optical sensor) or via a communication between a guest device 20 of the guest and wireless communication circuitry of the autonomous vehicle, e.g., via an NFC communication that sends guest identification information to the controller 24 to perform a guest verification.”);
determine whether or not the autonomous travel vehicle is in a full state (At least ¶ 7, line 67 “The autonomous vehicles collect guests that are seeking to enter the attraction from the area and, once an individual autonomous vehicle provides an indication to the system 14 (e.g., to the controller 24, see FIG. 2) indicating being filled or at capacity (114) with guests…”), where the full state refers to a state in which the number of passengers has reached a predetermined allowable number of people who can board the unmanned light vehicle (At least ¶ 8, line 65 “the on-board control logic and/or a central controller (e.g., controller 24, see FIG. 2) may adjust a vehicle capacity threshold depending on a ride status. If the attraction 22 is relatively empty with few waiting guests 12, the autonomous vehicles 26 may be dispatched to ride entry 124 when only half full…”. The adjusted vehicle capacity threshold of ½ full is analogous to a predetermined allowable number of people who can board the unmanned light vehicle.), or a state in which the sum of the weights of the passengers has reached a predetermined allowable weight that can board the unmanned light vehicle; and
interrupt circulation of the autonomous travel vehicle and return the autonomous travel vehicle to a return point when it is determined that the autonomous travel vehicle is in the full state during the circulation of the autonomous travel vehicle (At least ¶ 8, line 2 “once an individual autonomous vehicle provides an indication to the system 14 (e.g., to the controller 24, see FIG. 2) indicating being filled or at capacity (114) with guests, the individual autonomous vehicle is instructed to either return to the dispatch area of the ride (block 116) and eventually enter the attraction…”),
wherein at least one of the plurality of circulation positions is a getting-on/off position of the operator (At least ¶ 8, line 21 “Guests 12 enter the attraction 22 via a dispatch area 120 from which guests 12 are loaded/unloaded into autonomous vehicles 26. The dispatch area 120 may correspond to a ride queuing area with pre-show elements and in which guests 12 are permitted to move freely.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hitachi with Blum. This modification would have been obvious as both Hitachi and Blum contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (autonomous vehicles) and Hitachi notes that several worker-operated machines (e.g. excavator, dozer, wheel loader) may be operated at a loading site. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantage of a designated dispatch area 120, as described by Blum, as it relates to operation efficiency and safety. A designated dispatch area may help increase the efficiency of the contractor operation, as well as increase the safety of the operators themselves. Operators walking along worksite roads may be hard to recognize when a large industrial machine is being driven. Having a specific drop off/pick up point lessens the risk of a large machine colliding with a human operator. Additionally, recognizing when the autonomous vehicle/shuttle is in a full state, as described by Blum, may help the Hitachi system become more efficient. An autonomous shuttle would waste more fuel if required to make two trips for 2 different operators, as opposed to transporting multiple operates at once. Recognizing that the shuttle has open occupancy spaces is vital for efficient system operation.
Claim 18 recites a method executed by the system presented in claim 1, thus is rejected
on the same basis.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi in view of Blum, in further view of Kou.
Kou was cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hitachi and Blum teaches the management system for an autonomous travel vehicle according to claim 1.
The combination of Hitachi and Blum does not teach:
the circulation positions include an arbitrary fixed position.
However, Kou, within the same field of endeavor, teaches the circulation positions include an arbitrary fixed position (At least ¶ [0038] “the dump truck 20 passes a travel path Rcg to be refilled with fuel, moves to a gas station 2 away from its transport operation, goes back on a travel path Rcr after being refilled with fuel…”. A gas station is an arbitrary fixed position on the circulation route R.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Hitachi and Blum with Kou. This modification would have been obvious as both the Hitachi/Blum combination and Kou contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle management) and Hitachi notes that several worker-operated machines (e.g. excavator, dozer, wheel loader) may be operated at a loading site. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantage of using the fixed position (i.e. gas station), as described by Kou, as operator drop off/pick up points. This may increase the efficiency of the contractor operation, as well as increase the safety of the operators themselves. Operators walking along worksite roads may be hard to recognize when a large industrial machine is being driven. Having an arbitrary fixed point lessens the risk of a large machine colliding with a human operator.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hitachi, Blum, and Kou teaches the management system for an autonomous travel vehicle according to claim 12. Kou further teaches the fixed position is a position of a gas station of the work machine (At least ¶ [0038] “the dump truck 20 passes a travel path Rcg to be refilled with fuel, moves to a gas station 2 away from its transport operation, goes back on a travel path Rcr after being refilled with fuel…”).
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi in view of Blum, in further view of Umetani.
Umetani was cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hitachi and Blum teaches The management system for an autonomous travel vehicle according to claim 1.
The combination of Hitachi and Blum does not teach:
the processor manages a departure time or a return time of the autonomous travel vehicle.
However, Umetani, within the same field of endeavor, teaches the processor manages a departure time or a return time of the autonomous travel vehicle (At least ¶ [0100] “the processor 22 controls the communication part 141 to output a vehicle dispatch request to dispatch a vehicle to a location where the potential passenger G is present. More specifically, the vehicle dispatch request includes a time at which a potential passenger G is detected, and location data indicating a location where the potential passenger G is present.” And ¶ [0129] “in a case where a potential passenger G does not get in the autonomous driving vehicle 1 in a period of time with a predetermined length after the autonomous driving vehicle 1 stops, it may be regarded that a cancellation gesture has been issued.” A cancellation would cause the autonomous travel vehicle to depart the current location (i.e. a departure time was managed.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Hitachi and Blum with Umetani. This modification would have been obvious as both the Hitachi/Blum combination and Umetani contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle management) and Hitachi notes that several worker-operated machines (e.g. excavator, dozer, wheel loader) may be operated at a loading site. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantage of using a schedule management unit for managing departure and return times of vehicles. Umetani teaches a specific vehicle dispatch time, which may be welcomed by an operator in the field. Dispatching a transport vehicle at a specific time may increase the safety of the operators by reducing the amount of time they are present in the active jobsite. An operator or dispatcher may set a specific time (e.g. lunch or end of shift) for a transport vehicle to arrive so as to not waste the employees time, and also remove them from the dangers of the active industrial operations.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hitachi and Blum teaches The management system for an autonomous travel vehicle according to claim 1. Umetani further teaches when the circulation of the autonomous travel vehicle determined to be in the full state is interrupted, the processor causes another autonomous travel vehicle to travel to an interruption point (At least ¶ [0038] “in the case where the determiner determines that there is a passenger in the main vehicle part, that is, in a situation in which it is not allowed to accept a potential passenger, if the gesture detector detects a person making a gesture, the communication part outputs, to the vehicle dispatch system, a vehicle dispatch request for displaying a vehicle to a location of this person. In response, the vehicle dispatch system dispatches another autonomous driving vehicle to the potential passenger.”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668