DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 11/14/2025 has been received and considered. A legible copy of JP 2021-143044 has been attached.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a travel plan generator” (claims 1-16)
“an extraneous vehicle determiner” (claims 1-3, 5-7, 16)
“a peripheral situation monitor” (claims 8-14)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification ([0116]: “Each of the functions of the control device 3, the map information storing unit 31, the vehicle database 32, the travel plan generating unit 33, the communication unit 34, the recognition unit 35, the position estimating unit 331, the route determining unit 332, the route following unit 333, the extraneous vehicle determining unit 334, the driving control device 41, the driving control unit 411, the map information storing unit 412, the peripheral situation monitoring unit 413, the peripheral recognition unit 416, the vehicle state acquiring unit 417, the in-vehicle communication unit 423, and the connection control unit 424 may be implemented by a processing circuit, or the functions of the respective units may be collectively implemented by one processing circuit.”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7 and 16 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
Regarding claims 1 and 16, these claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a system and method for connecting a conveyance vehicle to a trailer. Therefore, claims 1 and 16 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A conveyance system for connecting a conveyance vehicle to a trailer parked in a site of a delivery center and for moving by the conveyance vehicle the trailer either to a warehouse provided in the delivery center or to a parking lot of the delivery center, the conveyance system comprising:
a travel plan generator to generate a travel plan of the conveyance vehicle, the travel plan being used to execute conveyance of the trailer by the conveyance vehicle either from the parking lot to the warehouse or from the warehouse to the parking lot;
and an extraneous vehicle determiner to determine whether or not an extraneous vehicle is present in the site, wherein
the travel plan generator, when the extraneous vehicle determiner determines that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generates the travel plan such that the conveyance vehicle does not obstruct traveling of the extraneous vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, “generate a travel plan of the conveyance vehicle, the travel plan being used to execute conveyance of the trailer by the conveyance vehicle either from the parking lot to the warehouse or from the warehouse to the parking lot” includes a human using pen and paper to determine a route for a vehicle to travel along between a warehouse and parking lot. The “determine whether or not an extraneous vehicle is present in the site” step includes a human observing whether any additional vehicles are present in the surrounding area. The “generates the travel plan such that the conveyance vehicle does not obstruct traveling of the extraneous vehicle” step includes a human using pen and paper or mentally determining how a vehicle should travel to avoid collisions with other surrounding vehicles. 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 idea 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”):
A conveyance system for connecting a conveyance vehicle to a trailer parked in a site of a delivery center and for moving by the conveyance vehicle the trailer either to a warehouse provided in the delivery center or to a parking lot of the delivery center, the conveyance system comprising:
a travel plan generator to generate a travel plan of the conveyance vehicle, the travel plan being used to execute conveyance of the trailer by the conveyance vehicle either from the parking lot to the warehouse or from the warehouse to the parking lot;
and an extraneous vehicle determiner to determine whether or not an extraneous vehicle is present in the site, wherein
the travel plan generator, when the extraneous vehicle determiner determines that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generates the travel plan such that the conveyance vehicle does not obstruct traveling of the extraneous vehicle.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The independent claims recite the additional elements of a travel plan generator and an extraneous vehicle determiner which are generic computing components merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and instant application [0116].
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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, 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. See MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does 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 elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity and generic computing components.
Therefore, the additional limitations are not a “practical application.” Additionally, it is not “something more” because the limitations include a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), and Nett et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0410898 A1 and Nguyenquang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0380128 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2-7, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims further define the abstract idea by specifying the travel routes generated based on an extraneous vehicle determination. A human could mentally observe an extraneous vehicle in the surrounding areas. Further, a human could use pen and paper or mentally determine travel paths to avoid the extraneous vehicle or travel along the same path as an extraneous vehicle. The claims also recite generic computing components merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Nett et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0410898 A1, Nguyenquang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0380128 A1, and Taira et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0381661 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “such that” as recited in claims 1-3, 5-7, and 16 appears to indicate the intended use of the previous clause. Therefore, the examiner will interpret anything that meets the claim limitation of the first clause as also being capable of performing the intended use.
The limitation “wherein the travel plan generator, when the extraneous vehicle determiner determines that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generates the travel plan such that the conveyance vehicle does not obstruct traveling of an extraneous vehicle” as recited in claim 16 is conditional on determining an extraneous vehicle is present in the site. Therefore, the limitation is not required to occur since it is not required for an extraneous vehicle to be present in the site. Accordingly, the prior art is not required to teach this limitation of claim 16.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nett et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0410898 A1 (hereinafter Nett), in view of Nguyenquang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0380128 A1 (hereinafter Nguyenquang).
Regarding claim 1, Nett teaches a conveyance system (Nett Fig. 5)
for connecting a conveyance vehicle to a trailer parked in a site of a delivery center and for moving by the conveyance vehicle the trailer either to a warehouse provided in the delivery center or to a parking lot of the delivery center, the conveyance system comprising (see at least Nett [0023]: “FIG. 1 is an aerial view showing one example autonomous yard 100 (e.g., a goods handling facility, shipping facility, etc.) that uses an autonomous tractor 104 to move trailers 106 between a staging area 130 and loading docks of a warehouse 110.”):
a travel plan generator to generate a travel plan of the conveyance vehicle (see at least Nett [0033]: “Once this request is validated, mission controller 102 invokes a mission planner 103 (e.g., a software package) that computes a ‘mission plan’ (e.g., see mission plan 520, FIG. 5) for each tractor 104. For example, the mission plan is an ordered sequence of high level primitives to be followed by tractor 104, in order to move trailer 106 from location X to location Y. The mission plan may include primitives such as drive along a first route, couple with trailer 106 in parking location X, drive along a second route, back trailer 106 into a loading dock, and decouple from trailer 106.”),
the travel plan being used to execute conveyance of the trailer by the conveyance vehicle either from the parking lot to the warehouse or from the warehouse to the parking lot (see at least Nett [0033]: “For example, mission controller 102 may receive a request (e.g., via an API, and/or via a GUI used by a dispatch operator) to move trailer 106 from a first location (e.g., slot X in staging area 130) to a second location (e.g., loading dock Y in unloading area 140).”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a parking lot includes a staging area and a warehouse includes a loading dock);
and an extraneous vehicle determiner to determine whether or not an extraneous vehicle is present in the site (see at least Nett [0049]: “In block 708, method 700 drives straight forward past the pick-up spot while scanning the pick-up spot to detect an obstacle and a 2-dimensional pose of the obstacle. In one example of block 708, controller 206 controls tractor 104 to drive straight past pick-up spot 660 while capturing point cloud 221, using LIDAR 220, corresponding to pick-up spot 660. Point cloud 221 is then processed to detect an object (assumed to be trailer 106) within pick-up spot 660, and to determine an angle, relative to pick-up spot 660, of trailer 106 based upon a front end of trailer 106 detected within point cloud 221. In certain embodiments, controller 206 also performs object classification to automatically determine that the detected object is trailer 106 and not another vehicle parked in the pick-up spot.”),
Nett fails to expressly disclose generating the travel plan to avoid obstructing the traveling of the extraneous vehicle when the extraneous vehicle is present. However, Nguyenquang teaches
wherein the travel plan generator, when the extraneous vehicle determiner determines that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generates the travel plan such that the conveyance vehicle does not obstruct traveling of the extraneous vehicle (see at least Nguyenquang [0105]: “In addition, if the overlap determiner 118 determines that the portion within the determined length from the end point (point G) of the section travel route R11 in the entire travel route R10 of the AGV1 overlaps the reserved travel route of the AGV2, the entire travel-route setter 112 re-sets the entire travel route.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Nett with Nguyenquang with reasonable expectation of success. Nguyenquang is directed towards the related field of a conveyance system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nett with Nguyenquang to improve efficiency by reducing a loss of conveyance time (see at least Nguyenquang [0010]: “The purpose of the present disclosure is to provide a conveyance system and a conveying method that can reduce a loss of conveyance time in the entire course on which the automatic conveying device travels.”).
Regarding claim 2, Nett in view of Nguyenquang teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 1 as explained above. Nguyenquang further teaches
wherein the travel plan generator, when the extraneous vehicle determiner determines that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generates the travel plan such that the conveyance vehicle stands by at a standby place provided in the site (see at least Nguyenquang [0116]-[0117]: “The third avoiding method is a method of causing the control information set by the control information setter 116 to stop the automatic conveying device 3 at a predetermined position of the travel route. For example, as shown in FIG. 17, the avoidance information creator 120 sets the control information to stop the AGV1 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. Note that the avoidance information creator 120 may set the control information to stop the AGV2 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. As described above, the avoidance information creator 120 creates a plurality of different avoiding methods (avoidance information candidates). By having the automatic conveying device 3 perform traveling in the avoiding method, intersection of the AGV1 and the AGV2 at the intersection H can be avoided.”).
Regarding claim 3, Nett in view of Nguyenquang teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 1 as explained above. Nguyenquang further teaches
wherein the travel plan generator, when the extraneous vehicle determiner determines that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generates the travel plan such that the conveyance vehicle stands by at a place provided in the site, the place being outside of a passage for the extraneous vehicle to travel (see at least Nguyenquang [0116]-[0117]: “The third avoiding method is a method of causing the control information set by the control information setter 116 to stop the automatic conveying device 3 at a predetermined position of the travel route. For example, as shown in FIG. 17, the avoidance information creator 120 sets the control information to stop the AGV1 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. Note that the avoidance information creator 120 may set the control information to stop the AGV2 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. As described above, the avoidance information creator 120 creates a plurality of different avoiding methods (avoidance information candidates). By having the automatic conveying device 3 perform traveling in the avoiding method, intersection of the AGV1 and the AGV2 at the intersection H can be avoided.”; Nguyenquang Fig. 17 shows the standby location for AGV1 is outside of travel route R20 for AGV2).
Regarding claim 4, Nett in view of Nguyenquang teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 1 as explained above. Nett further teaches
wherein the travel plan generator estimates an orbital path for the extraneous vehicle to trace, the orbital path being estimated by referring to either a position where the extraneous vehicle parks the trailer or a parking position of the trailer to be towed by the extraneous vehicle (see at least Nett [0026]: “At some later time, (e.g., when warehouse is ready to process the loaded trailer) mission controller 102 directs (e.g., commands or otherwise controls) tractor 104 to automatically couple (e.g., hitch) with trailer 106 at a pick-up spot in staging area 130 and move trailer 106 to a drop-off spot at an assigned unloading dock in unloading area 140 for example. Accordingly, tractor 104 couples with trailer 106 at the pick-up spot, moves trailer 106 to unloading area 140, and then backs trailer 106 into the assigned loading dock at the drop-off spot such that the rear of trailer 106 is positioned in close proximity with the portal and cargo doors of warehouse 110. The pick-up spot and drop-off spot may be any designated trailer parking location in staging area 130, any loading dock in unloading area 140, and any loading dock within loading area 150.”; [0033]: “The mission plan may include primitives such as drive along a first route, couple with trailer 106 in parking location X, drive along a second route, back trailer 106 into a loading dock, and decouple from trailer 106.”; an orbital path is a track for the vehicle to move along, as evidenced by instant application [0121]).
Regarding claim 5, Nett in view of Nguyenquang teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 4 as explained above. Nguyenquang further teaches
wherein the travel plan generator, when the extraneous vehicle determiner determines that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generates the travel plan such that entry of the conveyance vehicle into the estimated path for the extraneous vehicle to trace is avoided (see at least Nguyenquang [0116]-[0117]: “The third avoiding method is a method of causing the control information set by the control information setter 116 to stop the automatic conveying device 3 at a predetermined position of the travel route. For example, as shown in FIG. 17, the avoidance information creator 120 sets the control information to stop the AGV1 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. Note that the avoidance information creator 120 may set the control information to stop the AGV2 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. As described above, the avoidance information creator 120 creates a plurality of different avoiding methods (avoidance information candidates). By having the automatic conveying device 3 perform traveling in the avoiding method, intersection of the AGV1 and the AGV2 at the intersection H can be avoided.”).
Regarding claim 6, Nett in view of Nguyenquang teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 4 as explained above. Nguyenquang further teaches
wherein the travel plan generator, when the extraneous vehicle determiner determines that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generates the travel plan such that the conveyance vehicle does not cross the estimated path for the extraneous vehicle to trace (see at least Nguyenquang [0116]-[0117]: “The third avoiding method is a method of causing the control information set by the control information setter 116 to stop the automatic conveying device 3 at a predetermined position of the travel route. For example, as shown in FIG. 17, the avoidance information creator 120 sets the control information to stop the AGV1 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. Note that the avoidance information creator 120 may set the control information to stop the AGV2 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. As described above, the avoidance information creator 120 creates a plurality of different avoiding methods (avoidance information candidates). By having the automatic conveying device 3 perform traveling in the avoiding method, intersection of the AGV1 and the AGV2 at the intersection H can be avoided.”).
Regarding claim 8, Nett in view of Nguyenquang teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 1 as explained above. Nett teaches the system further comprising:
a peripheral situation monitor to detect an obstacle around the conveyance vehicle by referring to sensor information acquired from at least one of an external sensor provided in the conveyance vehicle and a roadside sensor provided in the delivery center (see at least Nett [0030]: “Tractor 104 also includes a location unit 216 (e.g., a GPS receiver) that determines an absolute location and orientation of tractor 104, a plurality of cameras 218 for capturing images of objects around tractor 104, and at least one Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) device 220 (hereinafter LIDAR 220) for determining a point cloud about tractor 104.”; Nett teaches at least an external sensor provided in the conveyance vehicle);
and a driving controller to control traveling of the conveyance vehicle by referring to both the travel plan generated by the travel plan generator and the detection result of the peripheral situation monitor (see at least Nett [0033]: “Once this request is validated, mission controller 102 invokes a mission planner 103 (e.g., a software package) that computes a ‘mission plan’ (e.g., see mission plan 520, FIG. 5) for each tractor 104. For example, the mission plan is an ordered sequence of high level primitives to be followed by tractor 104, in order to move trailer 106 from location X to location Y. The mission plan may include primitives such as drive along a first route, couple with trailer 106 in parking location X, drive along a second route, back trailer 106 into a loading dock, and decouple from trailer 106.”; [0047]: “In one example of block 704, controller 206 performs, for pick-up spot 660, a freespace analysis that determines freespace 620 (e.g., maneuvering room) around pick-up spot 660 based upon known information (e.g., layout of autonomous yard 100 defining buildings, boundaries 621, and obstacles).”),
Nguyenquang further teaches
wherein the driving controller, when the conveyance vehicle continues traveling by referring to the travel plan generated by the travel plan generator and when there is a risk of contact with the obstacle detected by the peripheral situation monitor, executes control to avoid contact with the obstacle in preference to the travel plan generated by the travel plan generator (see at least Nguyenquang [0152]: “According to the above configuration, the entire travel route from the travel start position to the destination position is first assigned to a plurality of the automatic conveying devices 3 and causes each of the automatic conveying devices 3 to start traveling. Then, in the middle of the traveling of the automatic conveying device 3, occurrence of intersection in the near future is predicted at any time. Note that the conveyance system 10 may use real-time position information, travel status and the like of all the AGVs to predict presence/absence of occurrence of intersection between the AGVs. When occurrence of intersection is predicted, a plurality of avoidance information candidates are created, and an operation simulation is performed for all the automatic conveying devices 3 for each of the plurality of avoidance information candidates, and the reserved travel route with the shortest conveyance time is re-set.”).
Regarding claim 9, this claim recites a system similar to the system of claim 8, with a dependence on claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites a system similar to the system of claim 8, with a dependence on claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites a system similar to the system of claim 8, with a dependence on claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites a system similar to the system of claim 8, with a dependence on claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites a system similar to the system of claim 8, with a dependence on claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, Nett in view of Nguyenquang teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 1 as explained above. Nett further teaches
the conveyance vehicle comprising a driving controller to execute driving control by referring to a travel plan generated by a travel plan generator included in the conveyance system (see at least Nett [0041]: “Maneuvering module 240 includes a mission executor 504 and a motion planner 506. Mission executor 504 may receive, from mission planner 103 running in mission controller 102, a mission plan 520 that defines an ordered list of mission segments, where each mission segment is a high-level primitive defining at least one activity to be performed by tractor 104. Mission executor 504 executes mission plan 520 by coordinating operation of one or more components of tractor 104.”).
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a method performed by the conveyance system of claim 1. The combination of Nett and Nguyenquang also teaches a method performed by the system of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nett in view of Nguyenquang, and further in view of Taira et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0381661 A1 (hereinafter Taira).
Regarding claim 7, Nett in view of Nguyenquang teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 4 as explained above. Nett in view of Nguyenquang fail to expressly disclose generating a travel plan for the conveyance vehicle to follow or precede the extraneous vehicle on the estimated path for the extraneous vehicle. However, Taira teaches
wherein the travel plan generator, when the extraneous vehicle determiner determines that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generates the travel plan such that the conveyance vehicle follows or precedes the extraneous vehicle on the estimated path for the extraneous vehicle to trace (see at least Taira [0050]-[0052]: “The overtaking determination unit 201 determines, when the control unit 200 recognizes that preceding moving robot 101 is moving in the same direction as that of the own moving robot (the moving robot 102) at a speed lower than that of the own moving robot on the movement path where the own moving robot plans to move, whether to overtake the moving robot 101…When the overtaking is abandoned, the control unit 200 controls the carriage drive unit 210 so that the own moving robot reduces the speed thereof and follows the moving robot 101 along the original movement path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Nett in view of Nguyenquang with the generated travel plan taught by Taira with reasonable expectation of success. Taira is directed towards the related field of a control program for autonomous moving bodies. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nett in view of Nguyenquang with Taira to improve operation efficiency (see at least Taira [0005]: “The present disclosure has been made to solve such a problem and provides an autonomous moving body and a control program therefor capable of properly overtaking a preceding autonomous moving body and efficiently executing a given task, without these autonomous moving bodies being controlled under a single system, or without these autonomous moving bodies communicating with each other.”).
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a system similar to the system of claim 8, with a dependence on claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Los, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0092575 A1, directed towards an automated postal delivery service method.
Itoh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0322210 A1, directed towards a vehicle conveyance management system.
Bagley et al., U.S. Patent No. 11592567 B1, directed towards an automated yard audit system using sensor information.
Darwin II et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0405657 A1, directed towards determining cargo delivery and pickup information for an intermodal facility.
Aisu, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0293063 A1, directed towards a travel planning system to avoid collision between mobile objects.
Hance et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0066041 A1, directed towards dynamic truck route planning between automated facilities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662