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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5 remain pending in the application. Claim 1 has been amended.
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 1-3 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 for use in an airport where a towing tractor mounted with a vehicle sensor ([313]) and a ground high-speed vehicle that is a vehicle having a speed limit set to be higher than a speed limit of the towing tractor operate, ([223-225] and [350], each dolly is configured with different speed limits based on the zone of operation, and with different speeds based on its operation and desired arrival time. This results in an interpretation of an ego towing tractor mounted with a vehicle sensor, and another towing tractor as a ground high speed vehicle), the 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),
said towing tractor and high-speed vehicle operating in a two-direction ground vehicle operation passage, which includes side strips respectively provided beyond the ground vehicle operation passage on each side of the ground vehicle operation passage (see Figure 7 below, which comprises the two-direction path 1002, i.e. operation passage, where the vehicles operate, and is recognized to be flanked by some form of side strips beyond both of its two sides),
PNG
media_image1.png
579
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of reference Keene, illustrating an operation passage 1002
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 and that the grasping unit grasps a position of the high-speed ground vehicle in the airport from other, external sensors ([313-314], [335], and [401], other dollies can detect and communicate the location of detected objects in their vicinity, including other dollies such as a high-speed ground vehicle), but it does not explicitly teach that the detection devices include an outside sensor provided outside the towing tractor, the outside sensor being installed such that a detection passage including the operation passage and side stripes is included in a detection range, wherein the outside sensor is fixedly installed in one of the side strips, 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, and a detection-side communication unit that is configured to transmit a detection result of the detection unit to the grasping device, the detection unit is configured to discriminate the high-speed ground vehicle as the type of the object and the grasping unit grasps a position of the high-speed ground 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 teaches:
an outside sensor provided outside the towing tractor, the outside sensor being installed such that a detection passage including an operation passage and side stripes is included in a detection range (see Fig. 7, the signals 703 from outside sensor 701 detect an area including the gap/strip closest to the sensor and the operation passage, and continue to extend beyond the operation passage to the other side),
wherein the outside sensor is fixedly installed in one of the side strips (see Fig. 7, the sensor is installed on the side of the operation passage)
a detection unit that detects a type of object present in the detection passage ([0048-0049]) and a position of the object in the detection range of the outside sensor based on a detection result of the outside sensor ([0044-0046]), and
a detection-side communication unit that is configured to transmit a detection result of the detection unit to the grasping device ([0006], signals produced from the detection result are transmitted “automatically within the airport infrastructure”),
wherein the detection unit is configured to discriminate the high-speed ground vehicle as the type of the object ([0048], specific control signals are generated for specific detected types of objects; [0049] and [0119], type of vehicle, including aircraft or “another motor vehicle” is detected 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 motor 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]). This additionally ensures that an ego dolly is not reliant upon other dollies for safety and detection, especially since other dollies may not be in a location necessary to detect objects that could otherwise impact the safety of the ego dolly
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 ground 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 ground 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 ground 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 ground 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, which includes 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 ground 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 ground 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, 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”; [0105], [0119-0120], [0124], and [0127] system detects a moving object and classifies it, such as a high-speed vehicle, as it is located in and traveling across the aircraft lanes, and controls the vehicle, including its speed, as a part of its autonomous driving to slow to a stop if its path of travel overlaps the lane in which a detected object is present). Note that this would include stopping or slowing an ego towing tractor vehicle if approaching the path of a moving object, such as a high-speed vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, 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”; [0105], [0119-0120], [0124], and [0127] system detects a moving object and classifies it, such as a high-speed vehicle, as it is located in and traveling across the aircraft lanes, and controls the vehicle, including its traveling location, as a part of its autonomous driving to slow to a stop if its path of travel overlaps the lane in which a detected object is present). Note that this would include stopping or changing paths of an ego towing tractor vehicle if approaching the path of a moving object, such as a high-speed vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, 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 04/20/2026, regarding the amendments to claim 1 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Keene in view of Lehnertz and Lunscher fails to teach the amendments to the claims as the outside sensor is now “fixedly installed in one of the side strips," which “precludes the Examiner's interpretation of the dollies 100 of KEENE as covering the recited detection passage.” Examiner agrees that Keene no longer teaches the outside sensor, but now relies on Lehnertz for such teaching as the sensor of Lehnertz is fixedly installed on the side of an operation passage.
Applicant further argues that “Lehnertz does not teach detecting a type of high-speed ground vehicle as the type of the object” as it was previously relied upon to teach the detecting of an airplane as a high-speed vehicle, which has been presently amended to instead be a high-speed ground vehicle. However, Keene teaches that the dollies are configured to operate in zones that restrict or set the speed limit of the dollies independently ([223-225] and [350]). Furthermore, Lehnertz teaches that it not only detects airplanes, but detects the type of any object, including “another motor vehicle” ([0048-0049] and [0119]). Therefore, the previous combination remains relied upon to teach the limitations of the presently amended claims.
Furthermore, regarding the detecting and distinguishing of high-speed ground vehicles, Examiner notes that additional reference Tanimoto et al. (JP2006301933A) discloses an airport system that detects and assigns higher priority of movement to mobile objects, such as emergency vehicles, in an airport ([0071] and [0081]). Tanimoto et al. is included in the record as alternate evidence that the distinguishing of high-speed vehicles is considered in prior art, but is not relied upon for the present rejection.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Keene et al. (GB2581416A)
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 10AM-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 R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights