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 non-final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-7 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02/15/2024 has been considered by examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 5, 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “any of steps” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
State identification unit in claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7
Control notification unit in claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7
Driving control unit in claims 2 and 6
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.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a State identification unit:
[0028] The storage device 320 is, for example, RAM, ROM, a hard disk drive (HDD), or a solid-state drive (SSD). In the present embodiment, the CPU 310 executes a computer program stored in the storage device 320 to function as a state identification unit 311 and a control notification unit 312.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a Control notification unit:
[0028] The storage device 320 is, for example, RAM, ROM, a hard disk drive (HDD), or a solid-state drive (SSD). In the present embodiment, the CPU 310 executes a computer program stored in the storage device 320 to function as a state identification unit 311 and a control notification unit 312.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a Driving control unit:
[0026] The CPU executes a program stored in the memory in advance to function as a driving control unit 161 that executes driving control of the vehicle 100. The “driving control” means, for example, adjustment of acceleration, speed, and steering angle of the vehicle 100.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1, 5, 6 and 7 is unclear because in the preamble describes “transport of a vehicle in any of steps from production to shipment of the vehicle” where no such steps are listed in the body of the claim. Examiner cannot determine of which steps the claims are directed to. Further the term “any” has two different meanings: “one or some” and “every” so it is indefinite which word is intended in the meaning of “any”. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine, with reasonable certainty, what the metes and bounds of "any steps" as claimed might possibly be from the teachings of the specification.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1 – YES
Claim 1, 5, 6 and 7 are directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 1, 5, 6 and 7 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 5, 6 and 7are analogous to each other so claim 5, 6 and 7 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here.
Claim 1 recites:
A control system for controlling transport of a vehicle in any of steps from production to shipment of the vehicle, the system comprising:
a state identification unit configured to identify a vehicle state that is a state of the vehicle; and
a control notification unit configured to determine a control content of the vehicle by using the identified vehicle state and notify the vehicle of the control content,
wherein the control notification unit is configured to determine to control at least either one of a transport route of the vehicle and a timing of starting the transport as the control content such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, determining a control content of the vehicle by using the identified vehicle state and notify the vehicle of the control content in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, based on data from a sensor, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper.
Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation (driver behavior).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A control system for controlling transport of a vehicle in any of steps from production to shipment of the vehicle, the system comprising:
a state identification unit configured to identify a vehicle state that is a state of the vehicle; and
a control notification unit configured to determine a control content of the vehicle by using the identified vehicle state and notify the vehicle of the control content,
wherein the control notification unit is configured to determine to control at least either one of a transport route of the vehicle and a timing of starting the transport as the control content such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of identifying… the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform data gathering, displaying, sending and receiving steps. In particular, the receiving and communicating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and performing communications for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impost any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1, 5, 6 and 7 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps identifying… amounts to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform data gathering, displaying, sending and receiving steps. In particular, the receiving and communicating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and performing communications for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 3 and 4, do not recite any further limitations that causes the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3 and 4 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6 and 7.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-7 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATKINS; Adam Keith et al. (US 20200156722 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Watkins teaches, a control system for controlling transport of a vehicle in any of steps from production to shipment of the vehicle (system for manufacturing a vehicle from fabrication to delivery, see at least, ¶3-5, Watkins), the system comprising: a state identification unit configured to identify a vehicle state that is a state of the vehicle (Fig. 2 block diagram for Vehicle control system 100 has sensors 202 that identify vehicle state, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins); and a control notification unit configured to determine a control content of the vehicle by using the identified vehicle state and notify the vehicle of the control content (Fig. 2 block diagram for Vehicle control system 100 has Electronic control unit 204 which receives input from sensors 202 and produces signals that guide and control a vehicle through an assembly line, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins), wherein the control notification unit is configured to determine to control at least either one of a transport route of the vehicle and a timing of starting the transport as the control content such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed (Fig. 9 depicts a flow chart showing a vehicle steering autonomously through a manufacturing plant, steps 902-904 demonstrate signal from the visual management guide sensor 106 to cause the vehicle to steer left or right to correct direction to remain along a predefined course which is interpreted as suppressing or correcting the magnitude of vehicle state so that the vehicle stays along the course, see at least, ¶69, Watkins).
Watkins does not explicitly teach such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed, however, one of ordinary skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation would consider the visual management guide sensor that provides guidance signals to correct a difference between the vehicle state and the pre-defined course as suppressing a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and preset target state.
Regarding Claim 5, Watkins teaches, a control system for controlling transport of a vehicle in any of steps from production to shipment of the vehicle (system for manufacturing a vehicle from fabrication to delivery, see at least, ¶3-5, Watkins), the system comprising: a state identification unit configured to identify a vehicle state that is a state of the vehicle (Fig. 2 block diagram for Vehicle control system 100 has sensors 202 that identify vehicle state, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins); and a control notification unit configured to determine a control content of the vehicle by using the identified vehicle state and transmit a running control signal indicating the control content to the vehicle (Fig. 2 block diagram for Vehicle control system 100 has Electronic control unit 204 which receives input from sensors 202 and produces signals that guide and control a vehicle through an assembly line, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins), wherein the control notification unit is configured to determine to control at least either one of a transport route of the vehicle and a timing of starting the transport as the control content such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed (Fig. 9 depicts a flow chart showing a vehicle steering autonomously through a manufacturing plant, steps 902-904 demonstrate signal from the visual management guide sensor 106 to cause the vehicle to steer left or right to correct direction to remain along a predefined course which is interpreted as suppressing or correcting the magnitude of vehicle state so that the vehicle stays along the course, see at least, ¶69, Watkins).
Watkins does not explicitly teach a server used in a control system for controlling transport of a vehicle in any of steps from production to shipment of the vehicle. However, one of ordinary skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation would interpret that an electronic control unit is a server or computer that sends control signals to the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 6, Watkins teaches, a vehicle transported in any of steps from production to shipment (Fig .3 depicts a block diagram of a vehicle control system which must include a vehicle, see at least, ¶9, Watkins), the vehicle comprising: a driving control unit configured to execute driving control during transport of the vehicle (Fig. 2 block diagram for Vehicle control system 100 has Electronic control unit 204 which receives input from sensors 202 and produces signals that guide and control a vehicle through an assembly line which must include driving control, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins); a state identification unit configured to identify a vehicle state that is a state of the vehicle (Fig. 2 block diagram for Vehicle control system 100 has sensors 202 that identify vehicle state, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins); and a control notification unit configured to determine a control content of the driving control by using the identified vehicle state and transmit a running control signal indicating the control content to the driving control unit (Fig. 2 block diagram for Vehicle control system 100 has Electronic control unit 204 which receives input from sensors 202 and produces signals that guide and control a vehicle through an assembly line, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins), wherein the control notification unit is configured to determine to control at least either one of a transport route of the vehicle and a timing of starting the transport as the control content such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed (Fig. 9 depicts a flow chart showing a vehicle steering autonomously through a manufacturing plant, steps 902-904 demonstrate signal from the visual management guide sensor 106 to cause the vehicle to steer left or right to correct direction to remain along a predefined course which is interpreted as suppressing or correcting the magnitude of vehicle state so that the vehicle stays along the course, see at least, ¶69, Watkins).
Watkins does not explicitly teach such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed, however, one of ordinary skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation would consider the visual management guide sensor that provides guidance signals to correct a difference between the vehicle state and the pre-defined course as suppressing a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and preset target state.
Regarding Claim 7, Watkins teaches, a vehicle transported in any of steps from production to shipment (Fig .3 depicts a block diagram of a vehicle control system which must include a vehicle, see at least, ¶9, Watkins), the vehicle being configured to receive from a server a running control signal indicating a control content of driving control during transport of the vehicle and execute the driving control by using the received running control signal (Fig. 2 block diagram for Vehicle control system 100 has Electronic control unit 204 which is interpreted as a server that receives input from sensors 202 and produces signals that guide and control a vehicle through an assembly line which must include driving control, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins), the server comprising: a state identification unit configured to identify a vehicle state that is a state of the vehicle (Fig. 2 block diagram for Vehicle control system 100 has sensors 202 that identify vehicle state, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins); and a control notification unit configured to determine a control content; and a control notification unit configured to determine the control content by using the identified vehicle state and transmit the running control signal to the vehicle, wherein the control notification unit is configured to determine to control at least either one of a transport route of the vehicle and a timing of starting the transport as the control content such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed (Fig. 9 depicts a flow chart showing a vehicle steering autonomously through a manufacturing plant, steps 902-904 demonstrate signal from the visual management guide sensor 106 to cause the vehicle to steer left or right to correct direction to remain along a predefined course which is interpreted as suppressing or correcting the magnitude of vehicle state so that the vehicle stays along the course, see at least, ¶69, Watkins).
Watkins does not explicitly teach that a server or such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed, however, one of ordinary skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation would consider that an electronic control unit is a server or computer that sends control signals to the vehicle; and the visual management guide sensor that provides guidance signals to correct a difference between the vehicle state and the pre-defined course as suppressing a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and preset target state.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATKINS; Adam Keith et al. (US 20200156722 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5-7 above and further in view of Nordbruch; Stefan (US 20170320529 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Watkins teaches, the control system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is configured as a vehicle with a remote guidance technology (Examples of technology include: remote guidance, see at least, ¶22-29, Watkins) a driving control unit configured to execute driving control of the vehicle in accordance with the control content notified from the control notification unit (gateway 102 transforms data from sensors into commands to operate the vehicle and the control system 100 provides a signal to the vehicle to cause it to speed up or slow down from the , see at least, ¶42-45, Watkins).
Watkins does not explicitly teach Remote Control auto Driving system.
Nordbruch, directed to a vehicle driving autonomously or remotely controlled within a manufacturing system for manufacturing vehicles teaches, Remote Control auto Driving system (remote-control instructions for remotely controlled driving are received by the vehicle, see at least, ¶42, Nordbruch).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Watkins to incorporate the teachings of Nordbruch which teaches Remote Control auto Driving system since they are both related to manufacturing vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Nordbruch would improve navigation of the vehicle within the manufacturing system (¶45, Nordbruch).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATKINS; Adam Keith et al. (US 20200156722 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5-7 above and further in view of Wells; James W. et al. (US 20200140028 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Watkins teaches, the control system according to claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to control the transport of a plurality of the vehicles (A control system is disclosed with the ability to access the steering system of a plurality of vehicles that has a central brain that knows where all the vehicles are at all times, see at least, ¶5, Watkins),
Watkins does not explicitly teach the state identification unit is configured to identify the vehicle state of each of the vehicles, and the control notification unit is configured to determine a transport order of each of the vehicles by using the vehicle state of each of the vehicles such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and the target state for at least some of the plurality of vehicles is suppressed, and notify each of the vehicles of running in accordance with the transport order as the control content.
Wells, directed to vehicle assembly and service teaches, the state identification unit is configured to identify the vehicle state of each of the vehicles (Fig. 5A and 5B depict a flowchart for operating the sensor skid where block 104, the skid controller 34 detects the vehicle controller 24, the propulsion system 20, the steering assembly 18, and/or the vehicle battery 22 and performs self-checks to determine that the vehicle controller 24 and the skid controller34 are operating according to predetermined operational conditions, see at least, ¶26, Wells), and the control notification unit is configured to determine a transport order of each of the vehicles (Fig. 5A, block 112 the server is the control notification unit determines a transport order of each of the vehicles in the form of a list of next stations that the vehicle is to navigate, see at least, ¶26, Wells) by using the vehicle state of each of the vehicles such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and the target state for at least some of the plurality of vehicles is suppressed, and notify each of the vehicles of running in accordance with the transport order as the control content (Fig. 5A, block 118 the vehicle controller 24, coordination server 50 or skid controller34 performs quality check (vehicle state). If quality checks do not pass, the operating method proceeds to block 122 where the vehicle receives directions to a repair area from the coordination server. Once the vehicle is repaired, the station order is updated in block 120. This is interpreted as a suppressing a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state (which is that status of the quality checks) and the target state (which is passing status of quality checks) is by updating a transport order, see at least, ¶26-31, Wells).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Watkins to incorporate the teachings of Wells which teaches the state identification unit is configured to identify the vehicle state of each of the vehicles, and the control notification unit is configured to determine a transport order of each of the vehicles by using the vehicle state of each of the vehicles such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and the target state for at least some of the plurality of vehicles is suppressed, and notify each of the vehicles of running in accordance with the transport order as the control content since they are both related to transporting during the manufacturing of vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Wells would develop a vehicle assembly process that is not dependent on a conveyor system to maximize the flexibility of the assembly process.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATKINS; Adam Keith et al. (US 20200156722 A1) in view of Wells; James W. et al. (US 20200140028 A1) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of ICHIKAWA ATARU (JP 2021047510 A) (Machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 4, Watkins, in view of Wells teaches, the control system according to claim 3,
Wells, directed to vehicle assembly and service further teaches wherein each of the vehicles includes a battery that stores electric power used for running of the vehicle, the state identification unit is configured to acquire a remaining amount of the battery as the vehicle state, and the control notification unit is configured to determine the transport order (The skid controller 34 is programmed to monitor the state of the charge of the vehicle battery 22 to schedule opportunity charging with the coordination server 50, see at least, ¶20, Wells).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Further modified Watkins in view of Wells to incorporate the teachings of Wells which teaches wherein each of the vehicles includes a battery that stores electric power used for running of the vehicle, the state identification unit is configured to acquire a remaining amount of the battery as the vehicle state, and the control notification unit is configured to determine the transport order since they are both related to transporting during the manufacturing of vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Wells would develop a vehicle assembly process that is not dependent on a conveyor system to maximize the flexibility of the assembly process.
Ichikawa directed to an unmanned conveyance system, teaches determine the transport order such that, among the plurality of vehicles, a second vehicle having a smaller remaining amount of the battery than a first vehicle is transported earlier than the first vehicle (Fig. 5 and 6 depicts vehicle state arranged in descending order based on remaining charge and selecting transport vehicle 1e which has the lowest remaining charge compared to all the transport vehicles 1a to 1e as the transport vehicle 1 to be charged first, see at least, ¶26-30, Ichikawa)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Further modified Watkins in view of Wells to incorporate the teachings of Ichikawa which teaches determine the transport order such that, among the plurality of vehicles, a second vehicle having a smaller remaining amount of the battery than a first vehicle is transported earlier than the first vehicle since they are both related to unmanned vehicle conveyance systems and incorporation of the teachings of Ichikawa would reduce vehicle charging wait time and increase transport vehicle efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights