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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/17/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-50 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.
Claims 1 and 28 recite the limitation “a vehicle” twice when a plurality of vehicles are provided already. It is unclear if this instance of a vehicle is the same or different than being one among the plurality of vehicles already provided. For purposes of examination the instance of a vehicle will be interpreted as being at least one of among the plurality of vehicles provided. Claims 2-27 and 29-50 do not cure these deficiencies and are similarly rejected.
Claim 8 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of "a point of entry for the vehicle to the guideway, a point where two or more of the plurality of paths merge, a point where two or more of the plurality of paths diverge, a point where two more of the plurality of paths intersect, and an exit for the vehicle from the guideway" is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: aforementioned points describe different scenarios and directions of travel for vehicles.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14, 17-25, 28-37, 40-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US8483895B1 Beregi ("Beregi") in view of US20210171079A1 Green et al ("Green").
As per claims 1 and 28, Beregi teaches the limitations of the system and method:
A control system for controlling one or more vehicle travelling along a guideway, the control system comprising: a control server; the guideway comprising a plurality of slots that move along the guideway at a slot speed, wherein the slots are virtual spaces dividing the guideway and assigned and moved virtually along a representation of the guideway within the control system; the control server configured to identify a plurality of waypoints along the guideway, each waypoint comprising a point of transition for the vehicle along the guideway; the control server further configured to assign a slot status for each slot, where the slot status comprises an occupancy signal indicating whether the respective slot is occupied; the control server further configured to determine, based on the slot status for each slot, a route along the guideway between a point of origin for a vehicle and a point of destination for the vehicle, wherein each waypoint along the route is not occupied at a calculated moment the vehicle would encounter the waypoint; and the at least two beacon devices configured to transmit a control signal configured to be received by the vehicle to control a vehicle speed of the vehicle such that the vehicle maintains a position within one of the plurality of slots along the route. (Beregi at least the abstract, col 2 line 19, col 4, FIG. 8B, col 22 lines 15-25, col 8 lines 60-65)
Beregi does not disclose:
at least two beacon devices
Green teaches the aforementioned limitation (Green at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beregi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Green with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to determine the position and speed of a vehicle on a guideway (Green [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Beregi additionally teaches:
the slot speed is a constant speed. (Beregi at least col 22 lines 15-25) *Examiner’s note: in a close proximity (small gap distance) platooning situation it would additionally be obvious to try, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to attempt to maintain a constant speed to prevent collisions.
Regarding claim 3, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Beregi does not disclose:
the plurality of slots comprises a length, the length is equal to a distance between two adjacent beacon devices of the at least two beacon devices.
Green teaches the aforementioned limitation (Green at least [0050-0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beregi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Green with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Beregi does not disclose:
the length is the distance between each adjacent pair of the at least two beacon devices.
Green teaches the aforementioned limitation (Green at least [0050-0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beregi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Green with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 29, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the at least two beacon devices configured to transmit the control signal configured to be received by the vehicle are further configured to transmit the control signal in a cycle of instructions. (Beregi at least col 22 lines 30-35)
Regarding claims 6 and 30, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Beregi does not disclose:
the at least two beacon devices are further configured to repeat the cycle of instructions over a time interval.
Green teaches the aforementioned limitation (Green at least 0035[]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beregi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Green with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 1.
Regarding claims 7 and 31, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the control signal is a cycle of commands to speed up, to maintain speed, and to slow down and the at least two beacon devices are configured to repeat the cycle at a regular interval, and wherein the regular interval is matched with the speed such that (a) when the vehicle arrives proximal to the transmitting beacon at a time later than expected for the position within one of the plurality of slots along the route the command speed up is the command being transmitted, (b) when the vehicle arrives proximal to the transmitting beacon at a time expected for the position within one of the plurality of slots along the route the command maintain speed is the command being transmitted, and (c) when the vehicle arrives proximal to the transmitting beacon at a time earlier than expected for the position within one of the plurality of slots along the route the command slow down is the command being transmitted. (Beregi at least col 19 lines 15-40, col 18 lines 60-67)
Regarding claim 8, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Beregi additionally teaches:
the guideway comprises a plurality of paths, and the plurality of waypoints comprise one or more selected from a point of entry for the vehicle to the guideway, a point where two or more of the plurality of paths merge, a point where two or more of the plurality of paths diverge, a point where two more of the plurality of paths intersect, and an exit for the vehicle from the guideway. (Beregi at least FIG. 8B, FIG. 11)
Regarding claims 9 and 32, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the control server is configured to assign the route to the vehicle. (Beregi at least col 20 lines 1-10, abstract)
Regarding claims 10 and 33, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the control server is configured to instruct propulsion of the vehicle along the route. (Beregi at least col 20 lines 1-10, abstract)
Regarding claims 11 and 34, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the vehicle is configured to receive the route and based on the route, conduct propulsion of the vehicle along the route. (Beregi at least col 20 lines 1-10, abstract)
Regarding claims 12 and 35, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the control server is configured instruct the vehicle to execute a sequence and number of self-instructions to propel the vehicle along the route, wherein the self-instructions comprise one or more of move right, move left, start, or stop, and the sequence and number of instructions is ordered to complete the route, wherein the control server is configured to create and transmit the sequence and number of self- instructions to the vehicle, and the vehicle is configured to execute the sequence and number of self-instructions. (Beregi at least col 20 lines 1-10, abstract)
Regarding claims 13 and 36, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
a database configured to store the slot status for each slot over time. (Beregi at least col 22 lines 15-30)
Regarding claims 14 and 37, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the at least two beacon devices are configured to issue operational commands to the vehicle. (Beregi at least the abstract)
Regarding claims 17 and 40, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the one or more vehicle comprises the vehicle and at least one additional vehicle. (Beregi at least col 5, col 22 lines 30-35)
Regarding claims 18 and 41, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the control server is further configured to determine, based on the slot status for each slot, a route along the guideway between a point of origin for each respective at least one additional vehicle and a point of destination for the at least one additional vehicle, wherein each waypoint along the route is not occupied at a calculated moment the respective at least one additional vehicle would encounter the waypoint; and the control signal is further configures to be received by the at least one additional vehicle to control a vehicle speed of the each respective at least one additional vehicle such that each respective at least one additional vehicle maintains a respective position within a respective one of the plurality of slots along the route. (Beregi at least col 22 lines 60-67)
Regarding claims 19 and 42, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the control signal is further configured to be received by the at least one additional vehicle and to transmit the control signal in a cycle of instructions. (Beregi at least col 22 lines 30-35)
Regarding claims 20 and 43, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the control signal is a cycle of commands to speed up, to maintain speed, and to slow down and the at least two beacon devices are configured to repeat the cycle at a regular interval, and wherein the regular interval is matched with the speed such that (a) when a respective at least one additional vehicle arrives proximal to the transmitting beacon at a time later than expected for the respective position within one of the plurality of slots along the route the command speed up is the command being transmitted, (b) when the respective at least one additional vehicle arrives proximal to the transmitting beacon at a time expected for the position within one of the plurality of slots along the route the command maintain speed is the command being transmitted, and (c) when the respective at least one additional vehicle arrives proximal to the transmitting beacon at a time earlier than expected for the position within one of the plurality of slots along the route the command slow down is the command being transmitted. (Beregi at least col 19 lines 15-40, col 18 lines 60-67)
Regarding claims 21 and 44, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the control server is configured to assign a respective route to a respective at least one additional vehicle. (Beregi at least col 20 lines 1-20, abstract)
Regarding claims 22 and 45, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the control server is configured to instruct propulsion of the respective at least one additional vehicle along the respective route. (Beregi at least col 20 lines 1-20, abstract)
Regarding claims 23 and 46, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the respective at least one additional vehicle is configured to receive the respective route and based on the respective route, conduct propulsion of the vehicle along the respective route. (Beregi at least col 20 lines 1-20, abstract)
Regarding claims 24 and 47, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the control server is configured instruct the respective at least one additional vehicle to execute a sequence and number of self- instructions to propel the respective at least one additional vehicle along the respective route, wherein the self-instructions comprise one or more of move right, move left, start, or stop, and the sequence and number of instructions is ordered to complete the respective route, optionally wherein the control server is configured to create and transmit the sequence and number of self- instructions to the respective at least one additional vehicle, and the respective at least one additional vehicle is configured to execute the sequence and number of self-instructions. (Beregi at least col 20 lines 1-20, abstract)
Regarding claims 25 and 48, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Beregi additionally teaches the limitations of the system and method:
the at least two beacon devices are configured to issue operational commands to a respective at least one additional vehicle. (Beregi at least col 20 lines 1-20, abstract)
Claim(s) 15, 26, 38, 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beregi and Green in view of US20070016366A1 Nagasawa ("Nagasawa").
Regarding claims 15 and 38, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Although Beregi teaches tracking slot statuses, determining a new route and assigning the new route (Beregi at least col 20 lines 1-35), Beregi does not disclose:
the control server is configured to track the vehicle and at least one other vehicle versus the slot statuses and the waypoints to calculate travel time to destination for the vehicle, determine a new route based on the travel time, and assign the new route to the vehicle.
Nagasawa teaches the aforementioned limitation (Nagasawa at least [0039-0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beregi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Nagasawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve transportation efficiency (Nagasawa [0003]).
Regarding claims 26 and 49, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Although Beregi teaches tracking slot statuses, determining a new route and assigning the new route (Beregi at least col 20 lines 1-35), Beregi does not disclose:
the control server is configured to track the vehicle, and all at least one additional vehicles versus the slot statuses and the waypoints to calculate travel time to destination for the vehicle and each at least one additional vehicle, determine a new respective routes based on the respective travel times, and assign the new respective route to the respective one of the vehicle and the at least one additional vehicle.
Nagasawa teaches the aforementioned limitation (Nagasawa at least [0039-0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beregi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Nagasawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve transportation efficiency (Nagasawa [0003]).
Claim(s) 16, 27, 39, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beregi and Green in view of US8996312B1 Freund et al ("Freund").
Regarding claims 16 and 39, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Although Beregi teaches vehicles entering the guideway system declaring the intended exit and a default route (Beregi at least col 20 lines 5-10), Beregi does not disclose:
the control server is configured to receive a trip request from a user interface, and the trip request includes the point of origin and the point of destination.
Freund teaches the aforementioned limitation (Freund at least the abstract, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beregi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Freund with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to estimate a travel time for a trip.
Regarding claims 27 and 50, Beregi in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Although Beregi teaches vehicles entering the guideway system declaring the intended exit and a default route (Beregi at least col 20 lines 5-10), Beregi does not disclose:
the control server is configured to receive a respective trip request from a respect user interface, and the respective trip request includes the respective point of origin and the respective point of destination for the respective additional vehicle.
Freund teaches the aforementioned limitation (Freund at least the abstract, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beregi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Freund with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to estimate a travel time for a trip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669