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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A corresponding to Figs. 1-14 (Claims 1-9 and 15-18) in the reply filed on 02/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/27/2026.
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.
Claims 7-9 are 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Applicant recites, “a determination circuit configured to determine, based on the second center of gravity information calculated by the calculator, the number of moving body to be used and/or a first assembly side connection position” and “the determination circuit is configured to determine the number of second moving body to be used based on the weight information of the second center of gravity information.” These limitations are awkwardly worded and it is unclear as to what the intended scope of the claims encompass. It is unclear if a singular moving body is intended to be claimed or multiple bodies. It is also unclear as to the relationship of the claimed side connection positions relative to the remainder of each claim. These claims are deemed indefinite.
Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 7 as rejected above.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant-admitted prior art KR 20150010194 in view of Applicant-admitted prior art, U.S. 2020/0307437 to Thielberger et al.
Regarding claim 1, KR 20150010194 discloses a transport system, comprising: a plurality of autonomously movable first moving bodies; and a second moving body (At least the vehicle ferry) configured to transport the plurality of first moving bodies as a first assembly in which relative positions of the plurality of first moving bodies with respect to each other are identified (At least shown in where cars are located next to each other).
KR 20150010194 does not expressly disclose that the vehicles are “autonomously” movable; however, a PHOSITA would have readily recognized at the time of effective filing that vehicles can move autonomously since it is well-known in the vehicle art that self-driving vehicles were commonly know at the time of effective filing.
Nevertheless, Thielberger is relied upon to teach autonomously movable vehicles (At least where autonomous vehicles are disclosed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the vehicles of KR 20150010194 to be autonomously movable, as taught by Thielberger, in order to avoid driver error which could result in driving off of the ferry and removing occupants from a potentially dangerous situation.
Regarding claim 2, the primary reference, KR 20150010194 discloses a calculator configured to calculate second center of gravity information, which is center of gravity related information of the first assembly, based on first center of gravity information, which is center of gravity related information of each of the first moving bodies constituting the first assembly (At least via the parking management optimization and stabilization of the COG of the ferry via COG of the vehicles in the ferry line).
Regarding claim 3, the primary reference, KR 20150010194 discloses that the calculator is configured to calculate the second center of gravity information for each of the plurality of arrangement patterns, the first assembly being formed by identifying the relative positions of the plurality of first moving bodies with respect to each other according to a plurality of arrangement patterns, and the transport system further comprises a selection circuit configured to select one of the arrangement patterns based on the second center of gravity information of each of the plurality of arrangement patterns, the second center of gravity information being calculated by the calculator (At least via the disclosed car park management method leveraging a parking management optimization system where the size/weight of each vehicle is accounted for and subsequently guided and checked during parking).
Regarding claim 4, the primary reference, KR 20150010194 discloses that the selection circuit is configured to select one of the arrangement patterns, based on a reference center of gravity position, which is a center of gravity position of the entire first assembly when the plurality of first moving bodies constituting the first assembly all have the same weight and the same center of gravity, and the second center of gravity information of each of the plurality of arrangement patterns (At least via the calculation procedure used in the carousel line and transmits a parking position).
Even though the bodies of the assembly all having the same weight is not expressly discussed, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that this scenario would be encompassed by the ingestion process when each car is identical (for example, transport of identical vehicles to a dealership or of a particular car club where drivers have the same type of vehicle or simply as a matter of moving similar vehicles) and would be subjected to the disclosed calculation procedure. This is simply a matter of selection as to which vehicles are moved by the disclosed ferry and does not obviate the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, the primary reference, KR 20150010194 discloses that the second center of gravity information includes center of gravity position information indicating the center of gravity position of the entire first assembly, and the selection circuit is configured to select one of the plurality of arrangement patterns in which the center of gravity position information of the second center of gravity information is closest to the reference center of gravity position (At least where the optimization system outputs parking positions for each vehicle based on the optimized output from the parking management system).
Regarding claim 6, the primary reference, KR 20150010194 discloses a transmitter configured to transmit, to the plurality of first moving bodies, information indicating the one arrangement pattern selected by the selection circuit, or information indicating positions of the plurality of first moving bodies in the one arrangement pattern selected by the selection circuit (At least via the disclosed car park management method leveraging a parking management optimization system where the size/weight of each vehicle is accounted for and subsequently guided and checked during parking via transmitted parking positions for each vehicle using the guide units).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the primary reference, KR 20150010194 discloses a determination circuit configured to determine, based on the second center of gravity information calculated by the calculator, the number of the second moving body to be used and/or a first assembly side connection position, which is a position in the first assembly to which the second moving body is connected (At least the parking arrangement determined for the vehicle via the parking optimization system).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the primary reference, KR 20150010194 discloses the second center of gravity information includes weight information indicating a weight of the first assembly, and the determination circuit is configured to determine the number of the second moving body to be used based on the weight information of the second center of gravity information (At least the parking arrangement determined for the vehicle via the parking optimization system using the weights/COG of each vehicle/ferry).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected as reciting substantially the same limitations as those found in claim 1, which has been rejected as discussed supra.
Claim 18 is rejected as reciting substantially the same limitations as those found claims 1 and 17, which have been rejected as discussed supra. Claim 18 introduces a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a transport program for causing a computer to perform the transport method.
Thielberger discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a transport program for causing a computer to perform the transport method (At least at Par. [0362]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of KR 20150010194 to have a non-transitory computer readable medium, as taught by Thielberger, in order to provide technical reliability to the system of KR 20150010194.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant-admitted prior art KR 20150010194 in view of Applicant-admitted prior art, U.S. 2020/0307437 to Thielberger et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 8,051,790 to Colangelo.
Regarding claim 15, the previous combination of KR 20150010194 and Thielberger disclose the claimed invention except for different types of movable bodies.
Nevertheless, Colangelo teaches multiple moving bodies aboard a ship wherein the first moving body is a vehicle equipped with wheels (At least the vehicular cargo – such as a Jeep), and the second moving body is a flight vehicle (At least a helicopter).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the previous combination of KR 20150010194/Thielberger to provide a transport for both land/air vehicles, as taught by Colangelo, in order to promote greater usability for the transport across various types of serviceable vehicles for increasing transportation capabilities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights