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 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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025, was filed after the mailing of a First Office Action on the Merits but before the close of prosecution. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. This application is a 371 national stage of PCT/JP2022/045282 which claims a filing date of 12/08/2022. This application also claims foreign priority to JP2021-202938, which has a foreign priority date of 12/14/2021. Examiner has checked and verified that the subject matter of the instant application is supported by the earlier filed foreign document. As such, the earlier filed date of 12/14/2021 is granted.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 02/13/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7 remain pending in the application. Examiner notes that the claim amendments have removed the terms requiring a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and as such, those sections have been removed from the current action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Maekawa, and in view of Kanai.
Regarding claim 1, Maekawa discloses the travel system being mounted on a hauling vehicle and letting the hauling vehicle travel along a target trajectory (Figs. 1-2, 11; the travel control system may be mounted on a transport vehicle that transports a load along a trajectory), a position sensor that measures a vehicle position of the hauling vehicle (Paragraphs 0092, 0096; system may include a position sensor for determining position of the transport vehicle), an orientation sensor that measures a vehicle orientation of the hauling vehicle (Fig. 11 item 36; hauling vehicle includes an azimuth sensor which can indicate an orientation of the hauling vehicle), a storage device that stores a curvature indicating a degree of curve of the target trajectory calculated for each of nodes making up the target trajectory (Paragraphs 0072, 0076; curvature may be mapped to 2D and 3D maps/courses, mapping may be considered a form of storage of the curvature values), a control device that controls travel of the hauling vehicle so that the hauling vehicle travels to a target point, which is a point through which the hauling vehicle passes, set on the target trajectory ahead of the vehicle position, the target point being calculated from a virtual point, which is the vehicle position when the hauling vehicle is assumed to travel for a predetermined forward travel time with the vehicle speed and the vehicle orientation (Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0025-0028, 0056, 0065-0068, 0076-0081; target points may be generated at given locations on the 2D course trajectory; each target point may be the position the vehicle will be at a given time with a given speed limit, upcoming target points are at future times and are associated with predetermined forward travel times; the target points can be considered as virtual points as they are not physically present; target points may be generated on the 3D course trajectory based on the 2D course trajectory points; the hauling vehicle may be controlled to move along a path designated by the target points; upcoming target points are points that the vehicle is expected to pass through as it traverses the area/path), and the control device, when the curvature at a node ahead of the vehicle position is less than a threshold value, being configured to set the target point at a location farther from the vehicle position than when the curvature is equal to or greater than the threshold value by calculating the target point based on the virtual point that is calculated using the forward travel time, which is changed to a longer time than when the curvature is equal to or greater than the threshold value (Figs. 1, 12, Paragraphs 0025-0028, 0076-0081; course data, which can include the target points, may be deemed appropriate/inappropriate based on the curvature of the 3D course trajectory; if the data indicates a large amount of curvature (can be considered as being above a threshold; appropriate course data curvature amounts can be considered as the threshold), the correction unit modifies the 2D course data which can include modification of the 2D course points (virtual target points, see above rationale); this modification can change the locations of the target points to those that are farther away which, when combined with the speed limits for the course trajectory, indicate a later (longer) time for the hauling vehicle; sections with less curvature may have target points spaced farther apart than when the curvature is large due to not needing corrections; additionally, highly curved segments need more target points to approximate the curve than say, a straight segment), but fails to disclose a speed sensor that measures a vehicle speed of the hauling vehicle.
However, Kanai teaches a speed sensor that measures a vehicle speed of the hauling vehicle (Paragraph 0032; hauling vehicles may have in vehicle sensors that can determine the vehicle’s speed). Therefore, from the teaching of Kanai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the hauling system of Maekawa to include a speed sensor that measures a vehicle speed of the hauling vehicle, as taught/suggested by Kanai. The motivation to do so would be to utilize a well-known sensor to determine a speed of the vehicle. This can allow for the vehicle to generate more accurate target points and control parameters as the speed of the vehicle is taken into account.
Regarding claim 2, Maekawa in view of Kanai renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Maekawa further discloses a load on a hauling vehicle (Paragraph 0026; multiple vehicles may be used for transporting loads; each vehicle may receive a load at a given location), but fails to disclose a load sensor that measures an amount of load on the hauling vehicle, wherein when the amount of load is less than a threshold value, the control device sets the target point at a position closer to the vehicle position than when the amount of load is equal to or greater than the threshold value. However, Kanai teaches a load sensor that measures an amount of load on the hauling vehicle, wherein when the amount of load is less than a threshold value, the control device sets the target point at a position closer to the vehicle position than when the amount of load is equal to or greater than the threshold value (Figs. 6, 17, Paragraphs 0137-0142, 0153; each vehicle may have a load sensor for determining a load that is in the hauling vehicle; the hauling vehicle may have permitted travel sections which are sections of travel between nodes; a hauling vehicle being loaded may be considered as a threshold amount of load; when the vehicle is not loaded, its traveling sections may be smaller, see 81-1 on Fig. 17 for an unloaded permitted vehicle path (nodes are spaced closer together); when a load has been received in loading field 68, the hauling vehicle may have longer traveling sections meaning that the nodes are farther apart).
Therefore, from the teaching of Kanai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the hauling system of Maekawa and Kanai to include a load sensor that measures an amount of load on the hauling vehicle, wherein when the amount of load is less than a threshold value, the control device sets the target point at a position closer to the vehicle position than when the amount of load is equal to or greater than the threshold value, as taught/suggested by Kanai. The motivation to do so would be to ensure that a trajectory of the vehicle is appropriately selected based on the weight of the vehicle. For instance, a vehicle’s handling may be increased based on how much or how little load is applied to the vehicle. By choosing closer or farther points for a trajectory based on the load, the vehicle may execute more efficient travel commands. For instance, a smaller load may allow for the vehicle to perform tighter turns which means that the nodes that make up that turn are grouped closer together (tighter curvature means nodes would need to be placed closer to fully define the curve).
Regarding claim 4, Maekawa in view of Kanai renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Maekawa further discloses a steering angle sensor that measures a steering angle of the hauling vehicle (Fig. 11 item 35; hauling vehicle includes a steering angle sensor), and the vehicle control section controls travel of the hauling vehicle according to the control target value of the steering angle (Paragraphs 0092-0093, 0101; the vehicle is controlled based on at least the steering angle data; the steering angle data is dependent on the trajectories and the map), but fails to disclose wherein the control device calculates a control target value of the steering angle to let the hauling vehicle travel from the vehicle position to the target point, such that the lower the vehicle speed of the hauling vehicle is, the smaller the control target value of the steering angle. However, Kanai teaches wherein the control device calculates a control target value of the steering angle to let the hauling vehicle travel from the vehicle position to the target point, such that the lower the vehicle speed of the hauling vehicle is, the smaller the control target value of the steering angle (Fig. 6, Paragraphs 0042, 0060-0061, 0066; control for the vehicle may be determined based on how much turning is required to traverse the area; Fig. 6 shows trajectories with varying amounts of curvature; the hauling vehicles may have their steering angle modified in order to allow for them to follow each of the trajectories; each travel path for the hauling vehicles has a given speed limit; this speed limit is based on the section information which can include how much the hauling vehicle will need to turn (steering angle) in order to traverse the section appropriately; this means that pathing curvature is based on the speed limit of the section; vehicles may be controlled based on the steering angles).
Therefore, from the teaching of Kanai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the hauling system of Maekawa to include wherein the control device calculates a control target value of the steering angle to let the hauling vehicle travel from the vehicle position to the target point, such that the lower the vehicle speed of the hauling vehicle is, the smaller the control target value of the steering angle, as taught/suggested by Kanai. The motivation to do so would be to ensure that a hauling vehicle does not travel along a curved section at too high of a speed, which can further prevent toppling and loss of cargo.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitations are similar to a portion of those from claims 2 and 4, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 2 and 4.
Regarding claim 7, Maekawa in view of Kanai renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Maekawa further discloses a wireless communication device configured to communicate with another hauling vehicle traveling along the target trajectory, wherein the wireless communication device transmits the forward travel time to the other hauling vehicle, and also receives the forward travel time set for the other hauling vehicle from the other hauling vehicle (Paragraphs 0028, 0103; hauling vehicles may be in wireless communication through a management device; 3D course information is transmitted to and from the management device which can include the target points which indicate hauling vehicle timing).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Maekawa, in view of Kanai, and further in view of Moshchuk.
Regarding claim 3, Maekawa in view of Kanai renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Maekawa further discloses a steering angle sensor that measures a steering angle of the hauling vehicle (Fig. 11 item 35; hauling vehicles include a steering angle sensor), but fails to disclose wherein when a steering angle speed calculated from the steering angle is less than a threshold value, the control device sets the target point at a position farther from the vehicle position than when the steering angle speed is equal to or greater than the threshold value. However, Moshchuk teaches wherein when a steering angle speed calculated from the steering angle is less than a threshold value, the control device sets the target point at a position farther from the vehicle position than when the steering angle speed is equal to or greater than the threshold value (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0011, 0056-0058, 0064; a vehicle’s current yaw rate may be compared to a yaw rate during a desired trajectory, if the vehicle’s current yaw rate is different than that of the desired yaw rate, then the b-spline defining the trajectory (and its associated waypoints) may be optimized to account for the current vehicle state; if a yaw rate is less than a desired yaw rate, the b-spline may optimize to approximate a more straight section, moving a given waypoint farther away (b-spline is made based on waypoints and trajectory; straight trajectory means waypoints do not need to be as clustered)). Therefore, from the teaching of Moshchuk, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the hauling system of Maekawa and Kanai to include wherein when a steering angle speed calculated from the steering angle is less than a threshold value, the control device sets the target point at a position farther from the vehicle position than when the steering angle speed is equal to or greater than the threshold value, as taught/suggested by Moshchuk. The motivation to do so would be to reduce the computational resources needed for target point generation for a given trajectory. For instance, if a hauling vehicle is traveling relatively straight (yaw rate is below a threshold), then target points do not need to be generated as closely together because straight sections need only two points to accurately define a trajectory segment. Likewise, a high yaw rate may indicate a trajectory with a high amount of curvature, and as such, requires multiple target points to accurately define the curved portions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that the prior art fails to disclose/teach the claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant is arguing that Maekawa and Kanai fail to disclose/teach control of the hauling vehicle being performed based on “changing a target point through which the vehicle passes on the target trajectory to a farther position or to a closer position on the target trajectory according to the magnitude of the curvature of the target trajectory”. Applicant specifically points to Maekawa in that Maekawa only discloses modification of the target points if the course is deemed inappropriate, and that the target points are not set farther apart based on a curvature being less than a threshold. However, the correction process, as can be seen in at least 0079 of Maekawa, discloses that the correction unit may search for better target point locations based on the 3D environment data. This can include modifying points to be along straight/flat sections, of which the target points will be spaced farther apart since less target points would be needed to approximate a straight path than a curved path. Additionally, the course is monitored over time for changes in environmental data, and as such, target points will be modified, even if not through the correction process (see at least Fig. 12; correction and generation of target points are performed through a looping process S4, S5, S8). Since the course generation is continuously revised and corrected, sections that are more straight will have target points set at farther distances (less points needed to approximate) than that of sections that have a large amount of curvature (more points needed to approximate). This effectively means that the control system sets target points for cases in which the curvature is less than a threshold, as well as cases in which the curvature is greater than or equal to a threshold. Regarding Applicant’s arguments with regards to Kanai and claim 1, Kanai is being used to explicitly teach a speed sensor. Applicant’s arguments regarding Kanai not being directed to a technical problem of “how to allow the vehicle to actually travel to keep the tracking performance to a target trajectory” is unrelated to Kanai since, as stated above, Kanai is (at least for claim 1) strictly used for teaching a speed sensor for measuring the speed of a hauling vehicle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights