DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response filed on 02/18/2026.
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action mailed 11/18/2025. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12, and 15-16 were amended. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and are subject to the final Office Action below.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant has amended Claim 1 and Claim 9 as Examiner suggested. Accordingly, the objections to Claims 1-16 have been rendered moot and thus, have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant has amended Claim 15 to avoid the usage of “means-plus-function” language. Accordingly, Claim 15 no longer invokes the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
35 USC § 112
Applicant has amended Claim 2 and clarified the prior indication limitation. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 2 has been rendered moot and thus, has been withdrawn.
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 02/18/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s computer program per se arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The issue with claim 16 is that the computer program product is claimed without any structural limitations. Specifically, claim 16 recites “when executed by a computing apparatus”. Thus, the claim is merely stating that the program can be executed by a computing apparatus. The claim does not include the computing apparatus or any other structural limitation. See MPEP 2106.03.
Regarding Applicant’s computer implementation and task argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The computer implementation or “by a computer system” limitations are an additional element which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The task limitation is still part of the abstract idea of organizing human activity as the second indication is merely notifying the container handling vehicle to start executing a task. The amendment merely specifies further what the task may be.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-16 have been maintained.
Examiner suggests Applicant incorporate limitations demonstrating the automated nature of the truck and/or container handling vehicle in order to possibly overcome the 101 rejection. For example, instead of merely providing an indication that the container handling vehicle may start a task, Applicant could amend the claim to recite more “active” limitations where the container handling vehicle receives the second indication and autonomously travels to the target location.
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s Wu arguments, although Wu may teach that the first and fourth indications are alternative to each other, Examiner respectfully notes that Wu still teaches the first and fifth indications and further, that Wu is capable of performing the fourth indication.
Examiner relies upon Kleine to teach the fourth indication and new reference Wang teaches the second and third indication. See rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-14 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and Claim 15 is directed to a computer system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, the claims all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 16 is directed to computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”). The claimed invention is directed to “a non-statutory computer program product storing a computer program” claimed without any structural limitations. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a patent eligible category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(I). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers products that do not have a physical/tangible form (software per se), the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will continue analysis of the claimed invention as though it has been amended to include structural limitations.
Step 2A - Prong 1:
Independent Claim 1 recites:
receiving … a first indication … indicating that the truck has arrived at a target location;
sending … a second indication …indicating that the container handling vehicle may start executing a task, the task comprising loading or unloading the truck, and moving toward the truck at the target location;
receiving … a third indication … indicating that the container handling vehicle is at the target location;
receiving … a fourth indication indicating that the truck is ready for the truck related part of the task execution; and
sending … a fifth indication … indicating that the container handling vehicle can execute the truck related part of the task execution
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
The limitations stated above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people or commercial or legal interactions). Specifically, commercial interactions or business relations regarding container handling at a target location in light of the technical field section of Applicant’s specification “The present application relates to tracking a truck that is driven by a driver in a container handling area that comprises automated container handling vehicles”.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claim recites the additional elements of a computer system, a truck, and a container handling vehicle. The limitations performed by the truck and container handling vehicle may be performed by a mobile phone or device including a processor running software as described in figure 4 and page 14-15 of the specification. Further page 8 of the specification details that the truck may have a mobile phone comprising GPS.
The computer system and mobile phone/device including a processor and GPS are recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer/functions) such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Examiner additionally noting the truck and container handling vehicle may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (executed in a vehicular environment i.e. to execution by the truck and the container handling vehicle) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Thus, the claim as a whole, looking at additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and/or field of use which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer system, a truck, and a container handling vehicle (specifically, the mobile phone/device including a processor and GPS) to perform the steps recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Again, the truck and container handling vehicle may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (executed in a vehicular environment i.e. to execution by the truck and the container handling vehicle) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
None of the steps of Claim 1 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to the abstract idea, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, or field of use, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination. Thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, Claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 2 specifies further instances where the first indication is rejected, Claim 3 specifies a further sixth indication, and Claim 6 specifies that the fifth indication is provided after the fourth indication is received. The limitations of Claim 2, Claim 3, and Claim 6 are further directed towards organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 4 and 5 specify further what the fourth indication comprises and that it is obtained from the driver of the truck. The limitations of Claim 4 and Claim 5 are further directed towards organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 7 specifies further that the additional element of the truck may comprise a device connected to the truck. The device connected to the truck is recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer/functions) such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components.
Dependent Claims 8 and 9 specify how the indications are transmitted and add the additional element of a wireless network which may be a LoRaWAN. The wireless network and LoRaWAN are recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer/functions) such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components.
Dependent Claims 10 and 11 specify further that the additional element of the container handling vehicle may be an automated container handling vehicle specifically an automated rubber tyred gantry crane. Both automated container handling vehicle and automated rubber tyred gantry crane may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (executed in a vehicular environment i.e. to execution by the automated container handling vehicle which may be an automated rubber tyred gantry crane) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Dependent Claim 12 specifies further tracking the location of the truck, Claim 13 specifies further what the task comprises, and Claim 14 specifies further what the first indication comprises. The limitations of Claim 12, Claim 13, and Claim 14 are further directed towards organizing human activity.
Claim 14 adds additional elements of a mobile device and one or more cameras recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer/functions) such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components.
Claim 15 adds a processor for performing the method of claim 1 and Claim 16 adds a non-statutory computer program product storing a computer program (when) executed by a computing apparatus to perform the method of claim 1. The processor, non-statutory computer program product storing a computer program, and computing apparatus are all recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer/functions) such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components.
Thus, nothing in dependent claims 2-16 adds additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-16 are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US2021/0132610) in view of Kleine (US2011/0238208) in view of Wang et al. (CN112184800).
As per independent Claim 1,
Wu teaches a method comprising:
Receiving, by a computer system, a first indication from a truck indicating that the truck has arrived at a target location (para. 76 vehicle scheduling system receives position information from the autonomous vehicle indicating the autonomous vehicle has arrived at the loading/unloading position; para. 35-37 where in para. 37 autonomous driving control device transmits a transportation task completion message and position information to the vehicle scheduling system; para. 39-40 the transportation task indicates moving to a goods transportation start point for loading goods and the autonomous vehicle moves from a current position to the loading position; para. 23 truck; figure 1 and para. 24 autonomous driving control devices and loading/unloading control device)
Sending, by the computer system, a fifth indication to the container handling vehicle indicating that the container handling vehicle can execute the truck related part of the task execution (para. 73-77 where in para. 76 loading/unloading control device receives a loading/unloading instruction from the vehicle scheduling system; para. 22 container handling vehicle; para. 28 and 30 loading/unloading control device controls a loading/unloading device to automatically load/unload goods from the autonomous vehicles)
Examiner also noting that the Wu vehicle scheduling system is capable of performing “receiving by the computer system a fourth indication indicating that the truck is ready for the truck related part of the task execution (para. 76 ready-for-loading message or a ready-for-unloading message sent from the autonomous driving control device to the vehicle scheduling system). However, in Wu, the scheduling system can either receive the first indication or fourth indication prior to transmitting the fifth indication. Examiner is modifying Wu to also receive the fourth indication in order to increase safety.
Wu does not teach, but Kleine teaches:
Receiving by the computer system a fourth indication indicating that the truck is ready for the truck related part of the task execution (see Kleine para. 9 the authorization signal is maintained as long as the driver stays in the waiting area; para. 23-27 where in para. 23 driver must leave and the gate is closed, the driver actuates a switch in a waiting area, the driver may not leave the waiting area during loading/unloading by the container stacking crane, if driver left, “this would immediately lead to the cessation of automatic operation in the area”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wu invention with Kleine with the motivation of increasing the security/safety of the container handling process.
See paragraph 9 of Kleine “Security in relation to the area where the driver is present can be increased in that, after leaving the parking space, the driver of the lorry moves to a waiting area, the presence of the driver is detected or established in the waiting area, and the authorization signal to the container stacking crane for the loading or unloading process is maintained as long as the driver stays in the waiting area.”
Wu/Kleine does not teach, but Wang teaches:
Sending by the computer system a second indication to a container handling vehicle indicating that the container handling vehicle may start executing a task, the task comprising loading or unloading the truck, and moving toward the truck at the target location (page 1 steps S1 to S6 where in step S2 the port operation system (“computer system”) provides instructions to the yard bridge (“container handling vehicle”) and the yard bridge moves to the corresponding bay position where the container truck is location as described in S1; further S5 describes the instructions of the port operation system as packing tasks or unloading tasks; see also page 5 steps S1-2)
Receiving by the computer system a third indication from the container handling vehicle indicating that the container handling vehicle is at the target location (page 1 step S3 after the yard bridge reaches the corresponding bay position, it will feed back arrival information to the port operation system; see also page 5 step S3)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wu invention with Wang with the motivation of increasing efficiency of loading and unloading operations.
See Page 1 background and summary “In the traditional port environment, safety judgements are usually made by container truck drivers. When safety officers are fatigued or improperly operated, safety accidents… will occur…This type of method lacks control and management of container truck behavior…reduce safety risks” and Page 5 “beneficial effects” 1-4 where “the system operation logic greatly improves the controllability and energy efficiency of port loading and unloading operations”.
As per dependent Claim 3,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wu further teaches:
receiving a sixth indication by the computer system from the container handling vehicle indicating that the truck related part of the task has been executed (see Wu para. 50-60 specifically 51 and 54 where an instruction indicating completion of the loading onto the autonomous vehicle is received from the loading/unloading control device)
As per dependent Claim 4,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wu does not teach, but Kleine teaches:
wherein the fourth indication comprises a continuous indication obtained from a driver of the truck (see Kleine para. 9 the authorization signal is maintained as long as the driver stays in the waiting area; para. 23-27 where in para. 23 driver must leave and the gate is closed, the driver actuates a switch in a waiting area, the driver may not leave the waiting area during loading/unloading by the container stacking crane, if driver left, “this would immediately lead to the cessation of automatic operation in the area”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wu invention with Kleine with the motivation of increasing the security/safety of the container handling process.
See paragraph 9 of Kleine “Security in relation to the area where the driver is present can be increased in that, after leaving the parking space, the driver of the lorry moves to a waiting area, the presence of the driver is detected or established in the waiting area, and the authorization signal to the container stacking crane for the loading or unloading process is maintained as long as the driver stays in the waiting area.”
As per dependent Claim 5,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 4.
Wu does not teach, but Kleine teaches:
wherein the continuous indication is an indication that has a pre-determined duration (see Kleine para. 9 the authorization signal is maintained as long as the driver stays in the waiting area; para. 23-27 where in para. 23 driver must leave and the gate is closed, the driver actuates a switch in a waiting area, the driver may not leave the waiting area during loading/unloading by the container stacking crane, if driver left, “this would immediately lead to the cessation of automatic operation in the area”; thus, the pre-determined duration is the time the driver remains in waiting area)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wu invention with Kleine with the motivation of increasing the security/safety of the container handling process.
See paragraph 9 of Kleine “Security in relation to the area where the driver is present can be increased in that, after leaving the parking space, the driver of the lorry moves to a waiting area, the presence of the driver is detected or established in the waiting area, and the authorization signal to the container stacking crane for the loading or unloading process is maintained as long as the driver stays in the waiting area.”
As per dependent Claim 6,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wu further teaches:
wherein the fifth indication is provided by the computer system after the first indication is received (para. 76 when the vehicle scheduling system receives the “first indication” or position information indicating autonomous vehicle has arrived at the loading/unloading position sent from the autonomous driving control device, it transmits the “fifth indication” or a loading/unloading instruction to the loading/unloading control device)
Examiner again noting that Wu teaches fifth indication is provided after the first or fourth indication (para. 76). Thus, Wu is capable of providing the fifth indication after the fourth indication is received.
Kleine teaches:
fourth indication (see Kleine para. 9 the authorization signal is maintained as long as the driver stays in the waiting area; para. 23-27 where in para. 23 driver must leave and the gate is closed, the driver actuates a switch in a waiting area, the driver may not leave the waiting area during loading/unloading by the container stacking crane, if driver left, “this would immediately lead to the cessation of automatic operation in the area” and further, after driver has entered waiting area data is sent to the system and working area of the crane is extended so that the container stacking crane can now carry out the desired loading or unloading process)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wu invention with Kleine with the motivation of increasing the security/safety of the container handling process.
See paragraph 9 of Kleine “Security in relation to the area where the driver is present can be increased in that, after leaving the parking space, the driver of the lorry moves to a waiting area, the presence of the driver is detected or established in the waiting area, and the authorization signal to the container stacking crane for the loading or unloading process is maintained as long as the driver stays in the waiting area.”
As per dependent Claim 7,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wu further teaches:
wherein the truck may comprise a device connected to the truck (see Wu para. 23 autonomous vehicle refers to a truck; para. 27 autonomous driving control device on each of the autonomous vehicles)
As per dependent Claim 8,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wu further teaches:
wherein the indications are transmitted by the computer system using a wireless network (para. 89-91 the autonomous driving control device, vehicle scheduling system, and loading/unloading control device are connected by means of wireless communication such as Bluetooth, LAN, V2X, etc.)
As per dependent Claim 10,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wu further teaches:
wherein the container handling vehicle is an automated container handling vehicle (see Wu para. 22 container handling vehicle “a loading/unloading device may be a bridge crane (i.e., a shore crane), a rail crane, a tire crane, a tower crane, a reach stacker, an overhead crane, a mobile crane, a robot, a forklift, etc. The present disclosure is not limited to any specific structure of the loading/unloading device”; para. 28 and 30 loading/unloading control device controls a loading/unloading device to automatically load/unload goods from the autonomous vehicles)
As per dependent Claim 12,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wu teaches:
wherein the method further comprises tracking by the computer system the location of the truck (see Wu para. 37 autonomous driving control device reports its position information to the vehicle scheduling system periodically which the vehicle scheduling system uses to update the transportation status of the autonomous vehicle; see also in para. 36 where the autonomous vehicle having its current position closest to the goods transportation start point is selected)
As per dependent Claim 13,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wu teaches:
wherein the task comprises loading a container to the truck or unloading a container from the truck (see Wu para. 84-88 loading/unloading instruction includes loading/unloading goods onto/from the autonomous vehicle; para. 3 containers are carried by the trucks; para. 36 container truck; para. 22 loading/unloading device may be bridge/rail/tire/tower/overhead/mobile crane or forklift)
As per dependent Claim 14,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wu teaches:
wherein the first indication comprises information regarding the location of the truck, a location of a mobile device associated with the driver of the truck and/or image data received from one or more cameras based on which the truck is recognized (see Wu para. 37 autonomous driving control device transmits a transportation task completion message and position information to the vehicle scheduling system)
As per dependent Claim 15,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wu teaches:
A computer system comprising a processor configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (para. 142-148 specifically para. 146 computer or processor)
As per dependent Claim 16,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wu teaches:
A non-statutory computer program product storing a computer program which, when executed by a computing apparatus, causes the apparatus to perform a method according to claim 1 (see Wu para. 142-148 specifically 146 computer program product)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US2021/0132610) in view of Kleine (US2011/0238208) in view of Wang et al. (CN112184800) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ben-Alexander (US2015/0006430).
As per dependent Claim 2,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wu/Kleine/Wang does not teach, but Ben-Alexander teaches:
wherein the first indication is rejected by the computer system: if prior to receiving the first indication a prior indication indicating that the target location has not been provided to the truck or if the truck fails to arrive at the target location within a predetermined time (Para. 120-122 warning message schedule 4 hours, 1 hour, and 15 minutes prior to the commencement of the truck driver’s reserved time slot; para. 133 anticipated late arrival at the terminal; para. 141-148 where in para. 141 small-scale disruptions are caused by a truck that cannot arrive at the terminal in time; para. 147 where the originally delayed truck arrives at the terminal and receives the first following available time slot; para. 148 driver is delayed but en route to terminal, terminal operator can decide to not wait for the truck and close the terminal)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wu/Kleine/Wang invention with Ben-Alexander with the motivation of mitigating terminal paralysis and handling schedule disruptions such as late drivers.
See Para. 126-131 “A significant challenge in managing the traffic flow at a terminal is the inherent uncertainty of time schedules, as described hereinabove…. advantage is taken of the reservation system and information stored therein in association with reserved time-slots to prevent terminal paralysis, to maintain at least some terminal capacity and to recover more quickly from a schedule disruption. Information which is particularly useful for these purposes includes one or more of the contact details of truck drivers and trucking operators, reserved time-slots, and information as to the reason for which a specific truck is to arrive at the terminal… In some embodiments, when a schedule disruption occurs, a warning communication is sent to affected truck drivers and/or trucking operators to mitigate the effect of the disruption.” See also Para. 95-96.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US2021/0132610) in view of Kleine (US2011/0238208) in view of Wang et al. (CN112184800) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Romano et al. (US2020/0034785).
As per dependent Claim 9,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 8.
Wu teaches the wireless network (para. 89-91 the autonomous driving control device, vehicle scheduling system, and loading/unloading control device are connected by means of wireless communication such as Bluetooth, LAN, V2X, etc.)
Wu/Kleine/Wang does not teach, but Romano teaches:
wherein the wireless network is a long range wide area network (LoRaWAN) (para. 138 network includes any number and type of computing resources and storage devices connected to a multitude of trucks using v2x, wifi, LoRaWAN, etc.; para. 275 wide area network; para. 120 computing devices of the system communicate with each other using communication networks such as a WAN or LAN)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of Romano LoRaWAN for the Wu wireless network. Both Romano and Wu teach a plurality of communication protocols through which devices and vehicles may communicate with each other such as v2x, LAN, etc. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US2021/0132610) in view of Kleine (US2011/0238208) in view of Wang et al. (CN112184800) as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Chung (US2020/0104790).
As per dependent Claim 11,
Wu/Kleine/Wang teaches the method according to claim 10.
Wu teaches:
wherein the automated container handling vehicle is an automated crane (see Wu para. 22 container handling vehicle “a loading/unloading device may be a bridge crane (i.e., a shore crane), a rail crane, a tire crane, a tower crane, a reach stacker, an overhead crane, a mobile crane, a robot, a forklift, etc. The present disclosure is not limited to any specific structure of the loading/unloading device”; para. 28 and 30 loading/unloading control device controls a loading/unloading device to automatically load/unload goods from the autonomous vehicles)
Kleine also teaches gantry cranes or semi-gantry cranes (para. 4).
Wu/Kleine/Wang does not teach, but Chung teaches:
wherein the automated container handling vehicle is an automated rubber tyred gantry crane (para. 47-48 automated container handling equipment; para. 54 rubber tired gantry)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of Chung automated rubber tyred gantry crane for the Wu automated crane. Both are cranes utilized to move containers. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yan (US2020/0143502)
Li et al. (US2021/0394747)
Klement (US Patent No. 6,571,172)
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 Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights