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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, “a reference location information acquiring step of acquiring, in a case where any one of the location indicators is detected on the first image, location information corresponding to the detected location indicator from location data stored in advance; a feature point setting step of setting, as a feature point, a random pattern on the first image; and a location information calculating step of calculating current location information of the overhead hoist transport based on the location information acquired in the reference location information acquiring step and a movement amount depending on a movement displacement of a feature point which is detected by comparing the first image with the second image.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim can be interpreted to be performed through a mental process either by a human or by a computer/processor. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is no further language that indicates how the step(s) are integrated into a practical application, it appears nothing more is accomplished that calculating values.
Claims 2, 3, 5 and 7 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites mathematical concepts, specifically mathematical formulas and/or equations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea as they simply amount to application of mathematical formulas. The claim does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they state generating variable data related to positioning and applying it to calculate motion of the hoist. The calculations using these mathematical formulas can be performed by a human or using a computer/processor. See MPEP 2106.02(a)(2)-B for more information on abstract grouping of mathematical formulas/equations.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 4.
Claim 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of “an initializing step of initializing the movement amount of the overhead hoist transport in a case where any one of the location indicators is detected in the reference location information acquiring step.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the language can be interpreted to be a mental process performed by either a human or a computer/processor. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is unclear about what takes place at the step of “initializing the movement amount of the overhead hoist transport”, there is no further information in the specification on what takes place during the initializing step and how, if at all, initializing in more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 states “calculating a correction value for the movement amount of the overhead hoist transport based on a difference value obtained by comparing the distance between the location indicator and the location indicator calculated in the interval calculating step with an actual distance between the location indicator and the location indicator stored in advance”. As the claim stands, it cannot be ascertained what the applicant means by “distance between the location indicator and the location indicator”. If applicant intends for this to be two different location indicators, it is recommended by the examiner to use language such as “a first location indicator” and “a second location indicator” or other language that distinguishes what the distance is measured to and from.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9330 and email is Miraj.Patel@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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.
/M.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights