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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11 – 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 December 2025.
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 10 are currently pending and considered below.
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 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (Hereinafter Maeda) (US 2023/0052077) in view of Wu (US 2021/0132610 A1).
As per claim 1, Wu teaches the limitations of:
a method of transporting a mined material (See at least paragraph 4; The unmanned vehicle travels to reciprocate between a loading place where loading work is performed by a loader and a dumping place where dumping work is performed. In some cases, an intersection may be on a transport path between the loading place and the dumping place.), comprising:
determining that a first hauler is located at a material loading location of a mine (See at least paragraph 27 - 28; a plurality of unmanned vehicles 2 and a plurality of loaders 3 operate on the work site. Each of the unmanned vehicles 2 is a vehicle that autonomously operates without depending on a driving operation by a driver. In the embodiment, the unmanned vehicle 2 is an unmanned dump truck that is a kind of transport vehicle transporting a load while traveling on the work site. Examples of the load carried by the unmanned vehicle 2 include ores or earth and sand excavated from the mine. Each of the loaders 3 performs loading work of loading the unmanned vehicles 2. The loader 3 includes working equipment for loading work. As the loader 3, an excavator or a rope excavator is exemplified. The work site includes a loading place LPA, a dumping place DPA, and a transport path HL. The loading place LPA refers to a workplace where the loading work of loading the unmanned vehicle 2 by the loader 3 is performed. The dumping place DPA refers to a workplace where the dumping work of dumping the load by the unmanned vehicle 2 is performed.); and
Maeda teaches the limitation of:
controlling a plurality of loaders to load mined material into the first hauler (See at least paragraph 52; the loader 3 operates in the loading place LPA. In the example illustrated in FIG. 5, one loader 3 operates in one loading place LPA. Note that a plurality of the loaders 3 may operate in one loading place LPA), but does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
implementing dynamic control to ensure only one loader is interacting with the first hauler at a time.
However Maeda teaches the multiple loaders works together to load the hauler (See at least paragraph 52) and also second loader could be used for loading second hauler for other material type to load as Applicant’s specification page 5 – 6 describes (See at least paragraph 72; The unmanned vehicles 2 in the second group travel toward the second loading place LPA2 according to the second course data CD2. After waiting at the waiting point WP in the second loading place LPA2, the unmanned vehicles 2 in the second group sequentially enter the loading point LP in the second loading place LPA2. The second loader 3B sequentially performs the loading work for the plurality of unmanned vehicles 2 sequentially positioned in the loading point LP.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify multiple loaders are at the loading space to load the first autonomous hauling truck and one of loader could be used to load the second truck of Maeda, to modify the Maeda to one loader at a time to load the first autonomous vehicle in order to reduce idle time of the loaders.
Maeda does not explicitly teach the limitations of:
in response to identifying that loading of the first hauler is complete, controlling the plurality of loaders to cease loading of the first hauler;
wherein the plurality of loaders are controlled such as to load into the first hauler mined material of a first material category only; and
communicating an instruction to the first hauler to move to a determined first unloading location for unloading of the loaded mined material, wherein the first unloading location is determined, at least in part, according to the first material category of mined material loaded into the first hauler.
Wu teaches
in response to identifying that loading of the first hauler is complete, controlling the plurality of loaders to cease loading of the first hauler (See at least paragraph 58; n electronic screen can be provided near each loading position. When the loading onto the autonomous vehicle stopping at the loading position is completed, a notification message indicating completion of the loading onto the autonomous vehicle can be displayed on the electronic screen. For example, information such as “License Plate Number *****, Loading Completed” or “Loading Completed” can be displayed on the electronic screen. The Examiner construes that completion of the loading would inherently prevent further loading of any more materials as the hauler will leave the loading location to dump the material at unloading location.);
wherein the plurality of loaders are controlled such as to load into the first hauler mined material of a first material category only (See at least paragraph 33; the management system 1 may include basic information of all goods contained in a particular area (e.g., a coastal port area, a highway port area, a logistics campus, a logistics center, a goods distribution center, a warehouse, a mining area, or the like), including for example: goods type, goods ID number, goods owner, goods source, goods storage time, current storage position of goods, goods transportation destination, deadline for delivery of goods to the transportation destination, etc. The management system 1 can generate the transportation plan based on the goods information in the following, non-limiting scheme. For goods to be transported, shipping-from-storage time can be determined based on the deadline for delivery of the goods to be transported to the transportation destination, and the transportation plan containing transportation information can be generated for the goods to be transported. The transportation information may include, but not limited to, any one or more of the following information: goods type, goods ID number, goods shipping-from-storage time, goods transportation start point and goods transportation end point.); and
communicating an instruction to the first hauler to move to a determined first unloading location for unloading of the loaded mined material, wherein the first unloading location is determined, at least in part, according to the first material category of mined material loaded into the first hauler (See at least paragraph 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in response to identifying that loading of the first hauler is complete, controlling the plurality of loaders to cease loading of the first hauler; wherein the plurality of loaders are controlled such as to load into the first hauler mined material of a first material category only; and communicating an instruction to the first hauler to move to a determined first unloading location for unloading of the loaded mined material, wherein the first unloading location is determined, at least in part, according to the first material category of mined material loaded into the first hauler as taught by Wu in the system of Maeda, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the combination of Wu and Maeda teaches the limitations of:
determining that a second hauler is located at the material loading location of a mine during loading of the first hauler (Maeda, see at least paragraph 72);
controlling the plurality of loaders to load mined material into the second hauler, wherein the plurality of loaders are controlled such as to load into the second hauler mined material of a second material category only, said second material category being different to the first material category, and implementing dynamic control to ensure only one loader is interacting with the second hauler at a time (Maeda, paragraph 52 and 72. Furthermore, please refer to rejection 1 for rationale of obviousness rejection of the current claim limitation),
such that at least a portion of the loading of the first hauler by the plurality of loaders occurs daring loading of the second hauler by the plurality of loaders (Maeda, see at least paragraph 52, 71 – 72).
As per claim 3, the combination of Wu and Maeda teaches the limitations of:
sensing material picked up by a particular loader to enable characterisation of picked up material to thereby assign a corresponding material category to the picked up material (Wu, see at least paragraph 33); and
directing the particular loader to load either the particular one of the first hauler and second hauler associated with the same material category of the picked up material (Wu, see at least paragraph 33).
As per claim 4, the combination of Wu and Maeda teaches the limitations of:
in response to identifying that loading of the second hauler is complete, controlling the plurality of loaders to cease loading of the second hauler (Wu, see at least paragraph 58); and
communicating an instruction to the second hauler to move to a determined second unloading location for unloading of the loaded mined material (Wu, see at least paragraph 33),
wherein the second unloading location is determined, at least in part, according to the second material category associated with the second hauler, wherein the second unloading location is distinct to the first unloading location (Wu, see at least paragraph 33).
As per claim 5, the combination of Wu and Maeda teaches the limitations of:
wherein the first hauler is returned to the material loading location after unloading the loaded mined material and subsequently loaded with mined material of a different material category to the first material category (Wu, see at least paragraph 33).
Regarding claims 6 – 10:
Claims 6 – 10 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 – 5 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lehtinen et al. (US 2017/0247860 A1) discloses arrangement for controlling a work machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662