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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5 remain pending in the application. Claim 4 has been canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome each and every 112 rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/02/2025.
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s comment that the IDS dated 12/12/2024 signed and included in the previously filed Office Action did not include the Examiner’s initials for the U.S. document listed thereon. As a result of this oversight, a newly signed copy of the aforementioned IDS has been included in the presently filed Office Action, indicating that the U.S. document has been fully considered.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keene et al. (GB2576800A) in view of Lehnertz et al. (DE102018251774A1) and Lunscher et al. (US20210087031A1).
Regarding claim 1, Keene teaches a vehicle operation assist system comprising:
a plurality of detection devices provided in the airport ([401], includes a swarm of baggage dollies; [313], each baggage dolly has a sensing system);
a grasping device provided in the towing tractor or a management device that manages an operation of the towing tractor ([313-314], “the processor 116”; note that it is the interpretation of the examiner that the management device is equivalent to the grasping device),
wherein the detection devices include an outside sensor provided outside the towing tractor, the outside sensor being installed such that a detection passage including an operation passage where the towing tractor and the high-speed vehicle operate and side strips provided on both sides of the operation passage is included in a detection range ([401], detection devices are additional dollies with their own sensors. Fig. 7 of Keene is included below, and shows that the detection passage includes the operation passage, i.e. the current lane of travel of a dolly, and side stripes provided on both sides of the lane, which includes the lane traveling in the opposite direction and the side of the road adjacent to the current lane of travel),
PNG
media_image1.png
579
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of reference Keene, illustrating a detection passage 148
a detection unit that detects a type of an object present in the detection passage and a position of the object in the detection range of the outside sensor based on a detection result of the outside sensor ([314-315], each additional dolly detects nearby objects with its sensors),
and a detection-side communication unit that is configured to transmit a detection result of the detection unit to the grasping device ([401], information is communicated with other dollies; [285] and [335], sensing data communicated from other dollies to respond to triggers or events, which are programmed according to the type of object detected),
the grasping device includes a grasping unit that grasps a position of the towing tractor in the airport and grasps presence or absence of an obstacle around the towing tractor based on the detection result of the vehicle sensor ([313-314], main dolly has its own sensing system),
and a grasping-side communication unit that is configured to receive the detection result of the detection unit transmitted from the detection-side communication unit ([285] and [401], main dolly receives sensing data from other dollies via its communication system). …
Keene teaches detecting objects in the form of visual triggers for specific events ([335]), but it does not explicitly teach that the detection unit detects a type of object and is configured to discriminate the high-speed vehicle as the type of the object, nor that the grasping unit grasps a position of the high-speed vehicle in the airport from a position of the outside sensor in the airport and the detection result of the detection unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Lehnertz discloses a sensor system for enhancing object detection to aid the travel of a motor vehicle in an airport. Lehnertz further teaches a detection unit that detects a type of object ([0048-0049]) and is configured to discriminate the high-speed vehicle as the type of the object ([0048], specific control signals are generated for specific detected types of objects; [0049] and [0119], detected airplane, i.e. a high-speed vehicle, is discriminated so that specific control actions can be taken based on the detection; [0044-0046], “control signals are generated based on the one or more determined kinematic variables” of the detected object, which includes speed), and that the grasping unit grasps a position of the high-speed vehicle in the airport from a position of the outside sensor in the airport and the detection result of the detection unit ([0076], processor receives environmental signals indicating where high-speed objects and vehicles are detected; [0118] and [0120], high speed vehicles are located so that the path of said high-speed vehicles does not overlap the lane of travel of the controlled vehicle).
As Lehnertz is analogous to the art of external sensor systems for vehicles in airports, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Keene by having the detection devices detect the type of objects in their detection range, and take control action based on the discrimination of certain objects, including high-speed vehicles based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Lehnertz, to improve an autonomous vehicle to take into account the type of vehicle detected to ensure safe operation ([0049]). This allows the controlled vehicle to safely avoid collisions and otherwise unsafe travel operations caused by other high-speed vehicles that are located outside the detection area of a controlled vehicle’s sensors ([0013-0016]).
The combination of Keene and Lehnertz does not teach the vehicle operation assist system further comprising: a sensor controller that is provided in the towing tractor or the management device and controls the vehicle sensor, wherein the sensor controller sets the detection range of the vehicle sensor based on positions of the towing tractor and the high-speed vehicle in the airport grasped by the grasping unit, and the sensor controller widens the detection range of the vehicle sensor when the towing tractor is approaching the high-speed vehicle stopped in the side strip, whereas the sensor controller narrows the detection range of the vehicle sensor when the towing tractor is not approaching the high-speed vehicle stopped in the side strip.
In the same field of endeavor, Lunscher teaches a vehicle system comprising:
a sensor controller that is provided in the towing tractor or the management device and controls the vehicle sensor ([0084] and [0114]),
wherein the sensor controller sets the detection range of the vehicle sensor based on positions of the towing tractor and the high-speed vehicle in the airport grasped by the grasping unit ([0114-0116], increase or decrease the detection range respectively if the operating environment is busy or slow, i.e. if another vehicle is nearby).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply such a teaching to the combination of Keene and Lehnertz, thereby increasing the detection range in unsafe operating conditions and decreasing the detection range in safe operating conditions. As the invention of Lehnertz is directed towards avoiding travel in the path of high-speed vehicles as recognized as causing unsafe driving conditions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that an oncoming obstacle, such as approaching a stopped high-speed vehicle in the side lane, is a potential unsafe operating condition that would necessitate the widening of the detection range, and the absence of an oncoming obstacle, such as not approaching a stopped high-speed vehicle in the side lane, is a safe operating condition that would narrow the detection range. This would allow the ego vehicle to adapt its detection range based on the perceived degree of safety, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a stopped high speed vehicle could create an unsafe operating condition, and is thus necessary to detect.
As Lunscher is analogous to the art of sensor systems for autonomous transportation vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination by changing the vehicle sensor’s detection radius based on the location of another detected vehicle based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the sensor by allowing it to detect an object sooner when an object is traveling fast enough to otherwise reduce the available reaction time of the system, and to ensure that it does not inefficiently detect objects too far away when an object is traveling at a slow enough speed so that the system has an excess amount of time to make necessary actions to guarantee safety.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Keene teaches that the system comprises:
a vehicle controller that is provided in the towing tractor or the management device and controls travel of the towing tractor ([308], “the drive system is controlled by a controller”). …
Lehnertz further teaches that the vehicle controller sets a traveling speed of the towing tractor based on positions of the towing tractor and the high-speed vehicle in the airport grasped by the grasping unit. ([0038], “longitudinal and lateral guidance is automatically controlled”; [0050] and [0105], system detects an airplane, i.e. a high-speed vehicle, located in the aircraft lanes, and controls the vehicle as a part of its autonomous driving to slow to a stop if its path of travel overlaps the airplane)
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Keene teaches that the system comprises:
a vehicle controller that is provided in the towing tractor or the management device and controls travel of the towing tractor ([308], “the drive system is controlled by a controller”). …
Lehnertz further teaches that the vehicle controller sets a traveling lane of the towing tractor based on positions of the towing tractor and the high-speed vehicle in the airport grasped by the grasping unit. ([0038], “longitudinal and lateral guidance is automatically controlled”, including any changing of lanes performed by any application of autonomous driving; [0051] and [0105], the traveling lane of the vehicle’s autonomous driving is set so that minimum distance is kept from a lane where the airplane, i.e. high-speed vehicle, is located).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Keene teaches that the system further comprises:
a vehicle controller that is provided in the towing tractor or the management device and controls travel of the towing tractor ([308], “the drive system is controlled by a controller”),
wherein the detection unit of the detection devices with the detection range of the outside sensor including a pedestrian crossing is configured to discriminate a person as the type of the object ([285], [314-315], and [401], the other dollies detect objects and their type with their sensors, and communicate this data to a specific dolly, which then allows for it to respond to triggers or events; [335], specific triggers include pedestrian crossings),
and the grasping unit grasps a position of the person in the airport from a position of the outside sensor in the airport and the detection result of the detection unit ([335], the position of the person is detected as part of a specific trigger, said triggers include “recognition of a human in a predetermined position relative to the baggage dolly”). …
Lehnertz further teaches that the vehicle controller sets a traveling speed of the towing tractor based on positions of the towing tractor and the person in the airport grasped by the grasping unit ([0038], “longitudinal and lateral guidance is automatically controlled”; [0040-0042], control signals generated so as to avoid collision with detected person; [0120], control includes controlling the speed of a vehicle so that it slows to a stop).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/02/2025, have been fully considered.
In regards to claim 1, applicant argues that Keene in view of Lehnertz and Lunscher fails to teach the amended limitations added to claim 1. This argument is unpersuasive. As noted in the previously filed Office Action, Lunscher teaches “a sensor controller that is provided in the towing tractor or the management device and controls the vehicle sensor, wherein the sensor controller sets the detection range of the vehicle sensor based on positions of the towing tractor and the high-speed vehicle in the airport grasped by the grasping unit” (see para. 19 of the previously filed Office Action, citing [0084] and [0114-0116] of Lunscher). Lunscher also teaches that the detection range is adjusted “in response to data received from the sensing system 220 and/or the fleet management system 120” ([0121]). Additionally, Lehnertz discloses recognizing high speed vehicles and where they are located ([0049] and [0119]) so as to ensure that an ego motor vehicle is not traveling into a lane that can risk a collision with these vehicles ([0118] and [0120]). Therefore, when modifying the combination of Keene and Lehnertz with the teachings of changing the detection range of Lunscher, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an ego motor vehicle approaching a stopped high-speed vehicle would present an unsafe traveling condition, and it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to widen or narrow the detection range as a result.
Applicant's argument that "LUNSCHER does not teach or suggest a concept of changing the detection range of a vehicle sensor in accordance with a detection result of a sensor placed at a position different from that of a sensor provided to the vehicle" as part of the amended limitations to claim 1 is not persuasive. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the detection range is changed “in accordance with a detection result of a sensor placed at a position different from that of a sensor provided to the vehicle”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The amended limitation to claim 1 merely requires that the high-speed vehicle is "grasped by the grasping unit". The claims define a variety of ways in which the grasping unit can locate an obstacle – such as a high-speed vehicle – in the airport. This includes this detection being "based on the detection result of the vehicle sensor". Applicant's argument that the detection range is only changed "in accordance with a detection result of a sensor placed at a position different from that of a sensor provided to the vehicle" is not a part of the claim language as the grasping unit is not limited to detecting objects with the outside sensor. Applicant is recommended to amend the claims to state that the detection of the high-speed vehicle that is used to set the detection range is explicitly by the outside sensor communicating with the grasping unit, as opposed to being detected the vehicle sensor.
Although this argument over the teachings of Lunscher is not pertinent to the claim language, the Examiner notes that both Lehnertz and Lunscher teach that external signals from sensors “at a position different from that of a sensor provided to the vehicle” are used to control the vehicle. ([0012] of Lehnertz, where the sensor that produces detection signals is part of an external “airport infrastructure environment sensor system”; [0080] and [0121] of Lunscher, where the detection range is adjusted in response to data received from “the fleet management system 120”, wherein this data is from external sensors placed in other vehicles of the plurality of autonomous material transport vehicles). Therefore, even if Applicant’s arguments over Lunscher were considered as part of the claim language, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an external sensor sensing the high-speed vehicle would also result in a changing of the detection range.
As a result of these unpersuasive arguments, a new rejection is set forth over Keene in view of Lehnertz and Lunscher as necessitated by applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Keene et al. (GB2581416A)
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 JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK ROBERT BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663