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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are currently being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Detecting portion in claims 1, 7, 9, and 11-16; position grasping portion in claims 1, 9, 10, 13, and 14; manipulating portion in claim 9; judging portion in claims 18 and 19; and receiving instrument in claim 19. Each of these terms are explained in the specification and drawings and have been interpreted to include structures consistent with the specification and drawings.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya et al. (US 2020/0174473) in view of Katsutoshi et al. (JP 2002/108446).
Regarding independent claim 1, Moriya et al. discloses:
An unmanned transport system configured to transport a weight object by traveling on a designated virtual flow line to a designated destination location [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 103 (forklift), 104 (pallet); Par. 0023, 0026, 0087, 0158], the unmanned transport system comprising:
an unmanned transport vehicle configured to travel unmanned according to a control signal; [See at least Par. 0024]
one or more cameras configured to image a field on which the unmanned transport vehicle is to travel from above the field to generate a still image or video; [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 105 (cameras); Par. 0029, 0038] and
wherein the operation control unit comprises:
a detecting portion configured to detect the unmanned transport vehicle from the still image or video; [See at least Par. 0038, 0039]
a position grasping portion configured to grasp a position of the unmanned transport vehicle in the field without being based on a sensor equipped with the unmanned transport vehicle using a result of a detection by the detecting portion; [See at least Par. 0038] and
a control portion configured to generate the control signal based on the position of the unmanned transport vehicle which the position grasping portion grasps. [See at least Par. 0028-0030]
While Moriya et al. discloses the structural components of the unmanned transport system and self-driving vehicles following routes to destinations in general, Moriya et al. does not explicitly disclose details of travelling along designated virtual flow lines, including handling of deviations from the flow lines. With respect to these limitations, Katsutoshi et al., directed to the same technology — guidance of autonomous vehicles and robots — teaches:
an operation control unit configured to generate the control signal for controlling such that the unmanned transport vehicle travels on the virtual flow line based on the still image or video, [See at least Par. 0006, 0009, 0010, 0013, 0014]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moriya et al. to incorporate the teachings of Katsutoshi et al. and combine the following and adjusting movement along virtual flow lines with the unmanned transport system and vehicles of Moriya et al. The following and adjusting movement along virtual flow lines of Katsutoshi et al. allows real-time tracking and adjustments for autonomous vehicles, enabling increased efficiency and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the following and adjusting movement along virtual flow lines of Katsutoshi et al. with the unmanned transport system and vehicles of Moriya et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the unmanned transport system and vehicles of Moriya et al. and the features of the following and adjusting movement along virtual flow lines of Katsutoshi et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Katsutoshi et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (guidance of autonomous vehicles and robots), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Moriya et al. discloses:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the unmanned transport vehicle is a forklift vehicle configured to lift and transport the weight object placed on a pallet together with the pallet. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 103 (forklift), 104 (pallet); Par. 0023, 0055, 0063]
Regarding claim 3, Moriya et al. discloses:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the field is indoors, and the one or more cameras are mounted on a ceiling or wall and configured to image the field from above. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 105 (cameras mounted to image from above); Par. 0029, 0030, 0038]
Regarding claim 4, Moriya et al. discloses:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the field is outdoors, and the one or more cameras are mounted on an outdoor structure and configured to image the field from above. [See at least Fig. 9 (outdoor parking lot), Ref. Numeral 105 (cameras) applied outdoors; Par. 0030, 0038]
Regarding claim 6, Moriya et al. discloses:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the unmanned transport vehicle is configured to perform an autonomous operation for loading or unloading of the weight object at the destination location. [See at least Par. 0023, 0025, 0026, 0055, 0068]
Regarding claim 9, Moriya et al. discloses:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the unmanned transport system comprises a plurality of unmanned transport vehicles whose destination locations and virtual flow lines are designated respectively, the detecting portion of the operation control unit is configured to detect the plurality of unmanned transport vehicles from the still image or video, the position grasping portion of the operation control unit is configured to grasp respective positions of the plurality of unmanned transport vehicles in the field, and the control portion of the operation control unit is configured to generate the control signal for each of the plurality of unmanned transport vehicles based on the plurality of positions grasped by the position grasping portion. [See at least Abstract; Par. 0008, 0098-0102, 0119-0120]
Regarding claim 10, Moriya et al. discloses:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the unmanned transport system comprises a plurality of cameras whose fields of view are different form each other, and the position grasping portion is configured to grasp the position of the unmanned transport vehicle in the field by integrating a plurality of still images or videos generated by the plurality of cameras. [See at least Par. 0029, 0038, 0039]
Regarding claim 11, Moriya et al. discloses:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the detecting portion is configured to detect the unmanned transport vehicle by using a neural network. [See at least Par. 0069]
Regarding claim 13, Moriya et al. discloses:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the operation control unit is configured to store a map of the field in which the flow line is defined, and the position grasping portion is configured to grasp the position of the unmanned transport vehicle by mapping the unmanned transport vehicle detected by the detecting portion on the map. [See at least Par. 0038, 0039, 0052, 0064, 0067]
Regarding claim 14, Katsutoshi et al. teaches what Moriya et al. lacks:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the unmanned transport system comprises a predetermined mark at a predetermined position in the field, the detecting portion is configured to detect the predetermined mark, and the position grasping portion is configured to grasp the position of the unmanned transport vehicle based on the predetermined mark which the detecting portion detects. [See at least Par. 0009, 0033, 0034, 0037]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moriya et al. to incorporate the teachings of Katsutoshi et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Moriya et al. discloses:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the detecting portion of the operation control unit is configured to further detect the weight object being transported by the unmanned transport vehicle. [See at least Par. 0101]
Regarding claim 17, Katsutoshi et al. teaches what Moriya et al. lacks:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the unmanned transport system further comprises a derailment judging unit configured to judge whether or not the unmanned transport vehicle deviates from the flow line, and the operation control unit is configured to generate the control signal so as to stop the unmanned transport vehicle or return the unmanned transport vehicle to the flow line when it is judged in the derailment judging unit that the unmanned transport vehicle deviates from the flow line. [See at least Par. 0010, 0013, 0048]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moriya et al. to incorporate the teachings of Katsutoshi et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 18 Katsutoshi et al. teaches what Moriya et al. lacks:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 17, wherein the derailment judging unit includes:
an in-vehicle camera equipped with the unmanned transport vehicle and configured to image surroundings around the unmanned transport vehicle to generate the still image or video; [See at least Par. 0054] and
a judging portion configured to judge whether or not the unmanned transport vehicle deviates from the flow line based on the still image or video generated by the in-vehicle camera. [See at least Par. 0010, 0013, 0048]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moriya et al. to incorporate the teachings of Katsutoshi et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Katsutoshi et al. teaches what Moriya et al. lacks:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 17, wherein the derailment judging unit includes:
a receiving instrument configured to receive a positioning signal; [See at least Par. 0009-0014] and
a judging portion configured to judge whether or not the unmanned transport vehicle deviates from the flow line based on the positioning signal received by the receiving instrument. [See at least Par. 0010, 0013, 0048]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moriya et al. to incorporate the teachings of Katsutoshi et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Claims 5, 7, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya et al. (US 2020/0174473) in view of Katsutoshi et al. (JP 2002/108446) and further in view of Salour et al. (US 2019/0187699).
Regarding claim 5, while Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. disclose the structural components of the unmanned transport system and self-driving vehicles, Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. do not disclose details of grasping the orientation of the vehicle, predetermined marks on the vehicle, or detection of obstructions. With respect to these limitations, Salour et al., directed to the same technology — guidance of autonomous vehicles and robots — teaches:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the operation control unit further comprises an orientation grasping portion configured to grasp an orientation of the unmanned transport vehicle based on the still image or video, and the control portion is configured to generate the control signal based also on the orientation grasped by the orientation grasping portion. [See at least Par. 0005, 0008, 0012, 0058]
For examination purposes, the orientation of the unmanned transport vehicle has been construed to include the angle and direction of travel of the vehicle, in addition to its position.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. to incorporate the teachings of Salour et al. and combine the details of grasping the orientation of the vehicle, predetermined marks on the vehicle, or detection of obstructions with the unmanned transport system and vehicles of Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. The details of grasping the orientation of the vehicle, predetermined marks on the vehicle, or detection of obstructions of Salour et al. allows real-time collision avoidance, enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the details of grasping the orientation of the vehicle, predetermined marks on the vehicle, or detection of obstructions of Salour et al. with the unmanned transport system and vehicles of Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the unmanned transport system and vehicles of Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. and the features of the details of grasping the orientation of the vehicle, predetermined marks on the vehicle, or detection of obstructions of Salour et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Salour et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (guidance of autonomous vehicles and robots), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Salour et al. teaches what Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. lack:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the detecting portion of the operation control unit is configured to further detect an obstruction from the still image or video, and the control portion of the operation control unit is configured to further generate the control signal based also on a result of a detection by the detecting portion. [See at least Abstract, Par. 0008, 0057]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. to incorporate the teachings of Salour et al. as discussed above, see claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, Salour et al. teaches what Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. lack:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the unmanned transport vehicle includes a predetermined mark on a top surface thereof, and the detecting portion is configured to detect the unmanned transport vehicle by detecting the predetermined mark. [See at least Par. 0079-0081]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. to incorporate the teachings of Salour et al. as discussed above, see claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, Salour et al. teaches what Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. lack:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the unmanned transport vehicle includes:
an in-vehicle detecting portion for detecting a surrounding obstruction; [See at least Abstract, Par. 0004, 0008, 0046, 0047, 0057] and
an emergency stop processing portion configured to perform an emergency stop processing of the unmanned transport vehicle based on a detection of the obstruction by the in-vehicle detecting portion. [See at least Abstract, Par. 0003, 0005, 0009, 0013, 0056, 0059]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. to incorporate the teachings of Salour et al. as discussed above, see claim 5.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya et al. (US 2020/0174473) in view of Katsutoshi et al. (JP 2002/108446) and further in view of Hattori (JP 2021/187672).
Regarding claim 8, while Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. disclose the structural components of the unmanned transport system and self-driving vehicles, Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. do not disclose a user-controlled interface by which to start movement of the vehicles. With respect to these limitations, Hattori, directed to the same technology — guidance of autonomous vehicles and robots — teaches:
The unmanned transport system according to claim 1, wherein the unmanned transport vehicle includes a manipulating portion which a user is to manipulate in order to start traveling on the flow line, and the control portion of the operation control unit is configured to start generating the control signal in accordance with a manipulation to the manipulating portion. [See at least Par. 0007-0009]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. to incorporate the teachings of Hattori and combine the user-controlled interface by which to start movement of the vehicles with the unmanned transport system and vehicles of Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. The user-controlled interface by which to start movement of the vehicles of Hattori allows multiple modes of operation including user-controlled initiation, enabling increased efficiency and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the user-controlled interface by which to start movement of the vehicles of Hattori with the unmanned transport system and vehicles of Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the unmanned transport system and vehicles of Moriya et al. and Katsutoshi et al. and the features of the user-controlled interface by which to start movement of the vehicles of Hattori would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Hattori because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (guidance of autonomous vehicles and robots), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner's Note
Prior Art: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
English Translations: If a prior art reference has been relied upon to map the claim limitations that is in a language other than English, Examiner has provided both the original reference and an English translation of the reference as attachments to the Office Action. Applicant is encouraged to refer to the provided English translation for cited pages and/or paragraphs in the mapping of prior art to claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 1000-2000 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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/EM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights