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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
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:
Wake-up module
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.
A wakeup module is interpreted to be a transceiver, according to paragraph 0031
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 § 112
Applicant’s amendments and arguments sufficiently address the indefinite material, and thus the related rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golgiri (US11724719B2) in view of Kleve (US20220073110A1) and Chen (US20210114554A1).
Regarding claim 8, Golgiri teaches;
A system comprising:
a vehicle control system (taught as an autonomous vehicle, with a vehicle controller, element 110le, element 115) configured to:
activate a wake-up module (taught as a communications system, element 150, connected to a wakeup circuit, column 8 lines 35-36) of an autonomous guided vehicle (AGV) [[in a fleet of a plurality of autonomous guided vehicles (AGVs)]] when the AGV is operating in a standby state (taught as activating a wakeup routine during a powered-down state [by a wakeup circuit], column 8 lines 23-29, such as wait state, column 10 lines 23-27),
determine, by the wake-up module, whether [interpreted to mean if a command was received, not an authentication of the source] a global wake-up command was broadcasted by a [[fleet management]] system (taught as detecting a directive from a user and executing the directive, column 10 lines 29-32, Fig 5), and
activate an on-state associated with the AGV in response to determining that the global wake-up command was broadcasted by the [[fleet management]] system (taught as entering a fully-powered up state based on receiving a directive, column 11 lines 21-27, Fig 5); and
a [[fleet management]] system (taught as a server that communicates with the vehicle controller and user devices, column 4 line 66- column 5 line 2), configured to: broadcast the global wake-up command (taught as a user transmitting a directive for the vehicle to execute, column 10 lines 29-32, Fig 5).
However, Golgiri does not explicitly teach a “in a fleet of a plurality of autonomous guided vehicles (AGVs)”, “a global wake-up command was broadcasted by a fleet management system”, “wherein the global wake-up command is configured to activate each AGV of the plurality of AGVs in the fleet from the standby state to the on-state”.
Kleve teaches; a global wake-up command was broadcasted by a fleet management system (taught as clustered vehicles waking up in response to a server, element 140, commanding networked vehicles, paragraph 0064; the clustered/networked vehicles would effectively correspond to the fleet, and the server messages the closest of the available networked vehicles [plural indicates it could choose to command more than one; and thus, depending on the ideal ‘closest’ distance, could in fact command each and every one of the vehicles).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fleet management system as suggested by Kleve in the system taught by Golgiri to effectively control multiple vehicle operations. Such operations help for further integration into the internet of things, controlling many devices in an ecosystem with a central controller. Kleve, for example, suggests that such crowdsourcing enables improvements in safety and convenience in an ecosystem (paragraph 0009). Furthermore, duplicating capabilities [broadcasting to multiple vehicles as opposed to one] does not inherently necessitate different structure or architecture.
However, Kleve does not explicitly teach; “wherein the global wake-up command is configured to activate each AGV of the plurality of AGVs in the fleet from the standby state to the on-state”.
Chen teaches; “wherein the global wake-up command is configured to activate each AGV of the plurality of AGVs in the fleet from the standby state to the on-state” (taught as initiate startup of each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles [fleet], paragraph 0143).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate startup commands that target and initiate each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles as taught by Chen in the system taught by Golgiri in order to improve speed of activation. As taught in Chen, when there is a large fleet of vehicles to start up, it becomes untenable to start each vehicle individually, (paragraph 0072); and thus, using a singular command would efficiently speed up the process for large fleets.
Regarding claim 9, Golgiri as modified by Kleve and Chen teaches;
The system of claim 8 (see claim 8 rejection). Golgiri further teaches; wherein the global wake-up command is broadcasted via an ultra-wide band network, Bluetooth®, WIFI , a CV2X protocol, a public cellular network, or a private cellular network (taught as communicating between the vehicle controller and the device based on a communications network, element 150, which uses local area networks, ultra-wideband, Bluetooth, internet, or cellular networks, column 5 lines 2-12).
While Golgiri does not explicitly teach that; “the wake-up module is coupled to a first low-power circuit associated with the AGV”, Golgiri does teach that the wake-up circuit, even when retained In a constantly powered up state, is designed to lessen battery drain as part of the wakeup routine (column 8 lines 41-50), and designed to have a lower battery charge consumption. This would indicate that such a circuit lowers power consumption of the system while retaining a level of usage, even in a powered-down state, and would fulfill the features of a “low-power circuit” as interpreted above.
However, Golgiri does not explicitly teach a “global wake-up command”, or “a fleet management system”.
Kleve teaches; a global wake-up command was broadcasted by a fleet management system (taught as clustered vehicles waking up in response to a server, element 140, commanding networked vehicles, paragraph 0064; the clustered/networked vehicles would effectively correspond to the fleet, and the server messages all of the available [globally] vehicles).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fleet management system as suggested by Kleve in the system taught by Golgiri to effectively control multiple vehicle operations. Such operations help for further integration into the internet of things, controlling many devices in an ecosystem with a central controller. Kleve, for example, suggests that such crowdsourcing enables improvements in safety and convenience in an ecosystem (paragraph 0009). Furthermore, duplicating capabilities [broadcasting to multiple vehicles as opposed to one] does not inherently necessitate different structure or architecture.
Regarding claim 10, Golgiri as modified by Kleve and Chen teaches;
The system of claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection). Golgiri further teaches; wherein the vehicle control system is further configured to: cause the wake-up module to be charged via a main power source associated with the AGV, wherein the first low-power circuit is coupled to the main power source (taught as a vehicle battery that powers components of a vehicle, column 7 lines 57-59, including the wakeup circuit that controls the connection to the vehicle battery to vary the amount of battery charge consumption, column 8 lines 44-50; this indicates that the wakeup circuit component is powered by the main vehicle battery).
Regarding claim 14, Golgiri as modified by Kleve and Chen teaches;
The system of claim 8 (see claim 8 rejection). Golgiri further teaches; wherein activating the wake-up module of the AGV is in response to a defined period of time elapsing (taught as the wakeup routine periodically [which indicates a time period or scheduled time interval] powering up components, column 8 lines 37-48), according to a predetermined schedule, or an initiation of a remote command.
Regarding claims 1-3, 7, 15-17, and 20, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 8-10 and 14. Therefore, claims 1-3, 7, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 8-10 and 14, wherein;
Claims 1-3 and 15-17 corresponds to claims 8-10, and
Claims 7 and 20 correspond to claim 14.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11-13, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golgiri (US11724719B2) as modified by Kleve (US20220073110A1) and Chen (US20210114554A1), and further in view of He (US20210119271A1).
Regarding claim 11, Golgiri as modified by Kleve and Chen teaches;
The system of claim 8 (see claim 8 rejection), wherein the vehicle control system is further configured to:
activate the standby state associated with the AGV (taught as, upon a key off condition, performing a wakeup routine in which the wakeup circuit is powered, and other components are periodically powered, column 8 lines 37-48) in response to a global shut-off command broadcasted by the fleet management system;
activate the wake-up module (taught as, upon a key off condition, performing a wakeup routine in which the wakeup circuit is powered, and other components are periodically powered, column 8 lines 37-4),;
determine whether the global wake-up command was broadcasted by the [[fleet management]] system (taught as determining if a directive [which encompasses various actions to be carried out by the autonomous vehicle, column 5 lines 21-22, and the vehicle is taught to transition to a key off state, column 10 lines 11-18] issued by the user was issued, column 8 line 64- column 9 line 2); and
activate a sleep [interpreted to be a standby state, as noted above] state associated with the AGV in response to determining that the global wake-up command was not broadcasted by the [[fleet management]] system (taught as, if no directive has been issued, the wakeup routine continues in monitoring periodically, as exemplified in column 9 lines 7-19).
However, Golgiri does not explicitly teach; the fleet management system, broadcasted by the fleet management system, and wherein the wake-up module is powered by an auxiliary power source.
Kleve teaches; the fleet management system (taught as the server, element 140) broadcasted by the fleet management system (taught as clustered vehicles waking up in response to a server commanding networked vehicles, paragraph 0064; the clustered/networked vehicles would effectively correspond to the fleet, and the server messages all of the available [globally] vehicles).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fleet management system as suggested by Kleve in the system taught by Golgiri to effectively control multiple vehicle operations. Such operations help for further integration into the internet of things, controlling many devices in an ecosystem with a central controller. Klee, for example, suggests that such crowdsourcing enables improvements in safety and convenience in an ecosystem (paragraph 0009). Furthermore, duplicating capabilities [broadcasting to multiple vehicles as opposed to one] does not inherently necessitate different structure or architecture.
However, Kleve does not explicitly teach; wherein the wake-up module is powered by an auxiliary power source.
He teaches; wherein the wake-up module is powered by an auxiliary power source (taught as a wakeup circuit, connected to an auxiliary power supply, paragraph 0024).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wakeup circuit as described by Golgiri with the system taught by He in order to improve wakeup circuit performance. As taught by He, using an auxiliary battery with a wakeup circuit allows for less power consumption from the overall battery system (paragraph 0005). Additionally, using an auxiliary power source promotes redundancy which allows components to function in the event of a power failure from the primary power source.
Regarding claim 12, Golgiri as modified by Kleve, Chen, and He teaches;
The system of claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection). Golgiri further teaches; wherein the vehicle control system is further configured to:
re-activate the wake-up module when the AGV is operating in a standby state and in response to a defined period of time elapsing (taught as the wakeup routine periodically [which indicates a time period or scheduled time interval] powering up components, column 8 lines 37-48), according to a predetermined schedule, or an initiation of a remote command.
Regarding claim 13, Golgiri as modified by Kleve, Chen, and He teaches;
The system of claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection). However, Golgiri does not explicitly teach; wherein a second low-power circuit couples the wake-up module to the auxiliary power source.
He teaches; wherein a second low-power circuit couples the wake-up module to the auxiliary power source (taught as a wakeup circuit, connected to an auxiliary power supply, paragraph 0024).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wakeup circuit as described by Golgiri with the system taught by He in order to improve wakeup circuit performance. As taught by He, using an auxiliary battery with a wakeup circuit allows for less power consumption from the overall battery system (paragraph 0005). Additionally, using an auxiliary power source promotes redundancy which allows components to function in the event of a power failure from the primary power source.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 18-19, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 11-13. Therefore, claims 4-6 and 18-19 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 11-13, wherein;
Claims 4-5 and 18 correspond to claims 11-12, and
Claim 6 and 19 correspond to claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant defines low power circuit on page 10 of the remarks to be less than 30 volts, based on paragraph 0031 of the specification.
The examiner will interpret the low power circuit as such, and withdraws the related rejection.
Applicant defines sleep state and standby state on page 10 of the remarks, such that sleep is a power off, while standby is an accessory state, and thus are distinct and defined.
The examiner will interpret the modes as such, and withdraws the related rejection.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of the remarks that the recited prior art does not sufficiently teach the amended material of “a global wake-up command….configured to activate each AGV”, as Kleve only describes a neighborhood cluster rather than a managed fleet of AGVs under which each AGV is activated.
The examiner agrees that Golgiri and Kleve do not explicitly teach that the startup command is configured to be sent to each vehicle in the fleet of vehicles as claimed, and thus withdraws the previous rejection. However, a new rejection in light of Chen is relied on to teach the deficiencies relating to starting up each vehicle in the fleet as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further wakeup commands; US20200162273A1
For further wakeup circuits; US20170163064A1, US20040119517A1
For further fleet management systems and controls; US20190033856A1, US20210086647A1
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 GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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 at (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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662