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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 12-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McVeen (US 2020/0110408 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: McVeen discloses a cockpit control method, comprising:
detecting a play scene (24) where a cockpit (14) is currently located (Para. [0031]);
determining a moving route and a moving mode, matching the play scene, of the cockpit (Para. [0032]);
judging whether the moving mode (e.g., travel via gondola system 16) matching the play scene is consistent with a current moving mode of the cockpit (Para. [0061]); and
controlling the cockpit to move along the moving route according to the moving mode (Para. [0031]).
Referring to Claim 2: McVeen discloses the cockpit control method as claimed in claim 1, after the judging whether the moving mode matching the play scene is consistent with a current moving mode of the cockpit, further comprising:
switching the current moving mode of the cockpit to the moving mode matching the play scene, in response to the moving mode matching the play scene being inconsistent with the current moving mode of the cockpit (Para. [0031], teaching “at each juncture of the gondola paths 18, such as at the gondola stations 20, the user may have the option to adjust the current travel route of the vehicle 14, such as by disengaging from the gondola system 16 and traveling by ground to a different destination, as opposed to continuing along the gondola path 18.”)
Referring to Claim 3: McVeen discloses the cockpit control method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the moving mode comprises at least one of moving through an automated guided vehicle (AGV) robot, moving through a track (18) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0025]), and moving through a carrier (86) (Fig. 3) (Para. [0037]); the AGV robot has an automated-guided-driving function.
Referring to Claim 10: McVeen discloses the cockpit control method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the detecting a play scene where a cockpit is currently located comprises: obtaining current location information of the cockpit (14), and determining the play scene where the cockpit is currently located based on the current location information (Para. [0061]).
Referring to Claim 12: McVeen discloses a cockpit control apparatus, comprising a cockpit (14), a controller (40), and a memory (42) (Fig. 2); wherein the cockpit and the memory are respectively connected to the controller; the memory stores a program instruction, the controller is configured to execute the program instruction to control the cockpit to implement a cockpit control method (Para. [0029]), and the cockpit control method comprises:
detecting a play scene (24) where a cockpit is currently located (Para. [0031]);
determining a moving route and a moving mode (e.g., travel via gondola system 16), matching the play scene, of the cockpit (Para. [0061]);
judging whether the moving mode matching the play scene is consistent with a current moving mode of the cockpit (Para. [0061]); and
controlling the cockpit to move along the moving route according to the moving mode (Para. [0031]).
Referring to Claim 13: McVeen discloses the cockpit control apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein after the judging whether the moving mode matching the play scene is consistent with a current moving mode of the cockpit, the cockpit control method further comprises:
switching the current moving mode of the cockpit (14) to the moving mode matching the play scene, in response to the moving mode matching the play scene being inconsistent with the current moving mode of the cockpit (Para. [0031], teaching “at each juncture of the gondola paths 18, such as at the gondola stations 20, the user may have the option to adjust the current travel route of the vehicle 14, such as by disengaging from the gondola system 16 and traveling by ground to a different destination, as opposed to continuing along the gondola path 18.”).
Referring to Claim 14: McVeen discloses the cockpit control apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the moving mode comprises at least one of moving through an automated guided vehicle (AGV) robot, moving through a track (18) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0025]), and moving through a carrier (86) (Fig. 3) (Para. [0037]); the AGV robot has an automated-guided-driving function.
Referring to Claim 20: McVeen discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (42), storing a program instruction, wherein the program instruction is executed by a processor to implement a cockpit control method (Para. [0029]), and the cockpit control method comprises:
detecting a play scene (24) where a cockpit (14) is currently located (Para. [0031]);
determining a moving route and a moving mode, matching the play scene, of the cockpit;
judging whether the moving mode (e.g., travel via gondola system 16) matching the play scene is consistent with a current moving mode of the cockpit (Para. [0061]); and
controlling the cockpit to move along the moving route according to the moving mode (Para. [0031]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 11 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding method claim 4 and corresponding apparatus claim 15, the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the claims regarding the ABV robot and gondola. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to combine the prior art to meet these limitations.
Regarding method claim 5 and corresponding apparatus claim 16, and respective depending claims 6-9 and 17-19, the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the claims regarding the height detection and vertical lifting platform. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to combine the prior art to meet these limitations.
Regarding method claim 11, the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the claims regarding obtaining an image of a particular logo arranged at an entrance the play scene, comparing the image with a pre-stored image, and determining the play scene where the cockpit is currently located; wherein each play scene corresponds to a respective particular logo. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to combine the prior art to meet these limitations.
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references relate to combined track systems for delivering passengers: US-20190079521-A1, US-20170021282-A1, US-20220274632-A1, US-20210370991-A1, US-20210300441-A1, US-20200385029-A1, US-20190388793-A1, US-20160272221-A1, US-20130125778-A1, US-20140158014-A1, US-12485934-B2, US-11801875-B2, US-5813349-A, US-20220009527-A1 and EP-3939848-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A
Prosecution Insights