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 . Claims 1-3 and 6-11 were previously pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 12 has been newly added. No claims have been newly cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 6-12 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/16/2026 has been entered.
Examiner note: The claims filed on 3/11/2026 with the Response After Final Action were not entered, as indicated in box 7(a) of the Advisory Action dated 3/17/2026. The claims filed on 4/16/2026 with the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) appear to incorrectly amend the claims filed on 3/11/2026, which were not entered.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 repeats the limitation “and wherein the outputting is configured to output an adjustment instruction for adjusting a moving speed of at least one of the plurality of transport vehicles in accordance with a progress status of an unloading process at the destination” in two instances. One of these instances should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the transport request instruction further includes information indicating a battery remaining amount of each of the plurality of transport vehicles, and in a case where the battery remaining amount is smaller than a battery remaining amount necessary for making a round trip between the respective departure places and the respective destinations, the assigning gives a lower priority to a transported object to be transported by the transport vehicle having the battery remaining amount smaller than the battery remaining amount necessary for making the round trip” does not appear to be supported in the specification. The specification in paragraph [0038] appears to support prioritizing assigning a transport vehicle according to a battery remaining amount. However, the newly amended limitations in the claim appear to require giving a lower priority to a transported object of the transport vehicle based on the battery remaining amount. The specification does not appear to support prioritizing the transported objects according to a battery remaining amount of the transport vehicles, but instead supports prioritizing assignment of the transport vehicles according to their battery remaining amounts.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 6 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 6-8 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.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the transport request instruction further includes information indicating a battery remaining amount of each of the plurality of transport vehicles, and in a case where the battery remaining amount is smaller than a battery remaining amount necessary for making a round trip between the respective departure places and the respective destinations, the assigning gives a lower priority to a transported object to be transported by the transport vehicle having the battery remaining amount smaller than the battery remaining amount necessary for making the round trip.” It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because in claim 1 the priority is referring to the transport objects, not the transport vehicles. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to be referring to a transport vehicle priority, different from the transport object priority recited in claim 1. Claim 6 will be interpreted to read --wherein the transport request instruction further includes information indicating a battery remaining amount of each of the plurality of transport vehicles, and in a case where the battery remaining amount is smaller than a battery remaining amount necessary for making a round trip between the respective departure places and the respective destinations, the assigning gives a lower transport vehicle priority to the transport vehicle having the battery remaining amount smaller than the battery remaining amount necessary for making the round trip.”
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 6 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (US 2021/0149401 A1) in view of Polus (US 2020/0354109 A1), Higashide (US 2021/0312813 A1), and Ford (US 2018/0060813 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kitamura discloses a transport system comprising: a plurality of transport vehicles capable of autonomously moving between respective departure places and respective destinations (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0032-0034] – transport vehicles V controlled by a controller 110…transports articles M from a pickup point to an unloading point); a terminal used for inputting a transport request instruction including information about a plurality of transported objects to be respectively transported by the plurality of transport vehicles (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0037, 0052] – Upon receiving from the host controller 150 a transport instruction which instructs a pickup point ST and an unloading point ST of an article M to be transported (Step S201), the data transmitter/receiver 111 of the controller 110 transmits the transport instruction to the assignment processor 116. The transport instruction includes a pickup request to pick up the article M at the pickup point ST.); and a server comprising at least one processor and at least one memory comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform (see at least [0036]): setting priorities of the plurality of transported objects to be transported from the respective departure places to the respective destinations, based on the transport request instruction (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0056] – priority is a degree to which how much the transport of the article M requiring prompt transport should be prioritized over other articles); assigning, in accordance with the priorities, the plurality of transport vehicles to respectively transport the plurality of transported objects, the assigning determines whether each of the plurality of transport vehicles being in a state of capable of transporting out of the plurality of transporting vehicles, and chooses and assigns the transport vehicles in the state of capable of transporting (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0039, 0056-0057] - If it is determined that there are pickup requests (Step S211: Yes), the assignment processor 116 extracts a pickup request having the highest priority from the plurality of pickup requests (Step S212). This priority is a degree to which how much the transport of the article M requiring a prompt transport should be prioritized over other articles, for example, and it is included in a pickup request (a transport instruction) and so forth transmitted from the host controller 150 to be notified to the controller 110. Next, the assignment processor 116 selects, from the plurality of transport vehicles V, a transport vehicle V which is expected to arrive earliest at the pickup point of the high-priority pickup request (Step S213).); and outputting, at a predetermined timing, a movement instruction to each of the plurality of transport vehicles assigned by the assignment unit, wherein the outputting the movement instruction to provide a time difference in arrival time when the plurality of transport vehicles arrive at the respective destinations (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0039, 0044] - The schedule table 124 stores information of the pickup points ST and the unloading points ST, information of schedules of transport vehicles V which travel toward the pickup points ST and the unloading points ST, information of times at which pickups are performed at the pickup point ST, and information which provides transport schedules of transport vehicles V, including information of times at which unloading is performed at the unloading points ST.).
Kitamura does not appear to explicitly disclose calculating priorities of the plurality of transported objects to be transported from the respective departure places to the respective destinations, based on the transport request instruction; wherein the outputting outputs the movement instruction to provide a preset time difference in arrival time when the plurality of transport vehicles arrive at the respective destinations, and wherein the outputting is configured to output an adjustment instruction for adjusting a moving speed of at least one of the plurality of transport vehicles in accordance with a progress status of an unloading process at the destination.
Polus, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: calculating priorities of the plurality of transported objects to be transported from the respective departure places to the respective destinations, based on the transport request instruction (see at least [0042-0047] - calculating, at 354, a priority score associated with each delivery item such that the generating the delivery itinerary at 350 includes configuring the delivery itinerary to deliver the delivery items in order of descending priority score).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Polus into the invention of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to prioritize delivering the items based upon appropriate considerations (Polus – [0043]). Since Kitamura already mentions setting priorities, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out this modification of calculating priorities to yield predictable results.
Higashide, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the outputting outputs the movement instruction to provide a preset time difference in arrival time when the plurality of transport vehicles arrive at the respective destinations (see at least Figs. 1-2, 6, [0089-0090] – operation interval between operating vehicles C1 and C2… a time difference between a time when the operating vehicle C1 passes a predetermined point on the circuit 100 and a time when the following operating vehicle C2 passes the same point is the actual operation interval Dra of the operating vehicles C1 and C2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Higashide into the invention of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to prevent the plurality of vehicles from simultaneously passing through the same location (Kitamura – [0035]). This would improve the efficiency of executing the pickup requests (Kitamura – [0003]) since any conflict would require one of the vehicles to stop or slow down to allow the other to pass through the location first. This is because vehicles simultaneously passing through the same location can cause a collision or conflict and negatively impact the schedule. Since Kitamura already discloses a time difference between arrival of transport vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out this modification of implementing a preset time difference to yield predictable results.
Ford, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the outputting is configured to output an adjustment instruction for adjusting a moving speed of at least one of the plurality of transport vehicles in accordance with a progress status of an unloading process at the destination (see at least [0005, 0008, 0012, 0022-0023] – transmit instructions to the delivery vehicle to proceed to a waiting area such as a parking area or temporary holding area when the unloading/loading area is occupied or otherwise unavailable… further instructions are provided to proceed to the unloading/loading area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Ford into the invention of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to reduce congestion in the facility when the unloading/loading area is occupied or otherwise unavailable (Ford – [0005, 0012]). Certain unloading processes may unexpectedly take longer, and it would reduce congestion as taught by Ford if the transport vehicle waited in a waiting area until the vehicle has completed unloading so that the unloading/loading area becomes available for the vehicle that was waiting. This process would cause the autonomous delivery vehicle to reduce speed to a parked position for waiting, and then to increase speed in order to proceed from the waiting area to the unloading/loading area. This could be implemented to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Kitamura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the outputting outputs the movement instruction at the predetermined timing when the preset time difference is ensured by adjusting departure times when the plurality of transport vehicles depart from the respective departure places.
Higashide, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the outputting outputs the movement instruction at the predetermined timing when the preset time difference is ensured by adjusting departure times when the plurality of transport vehicles depart from the respective departure places (see at least Figs. 1-2, 6, [0089-0090] – operation interval between operating vehicles C1 and C2… a time difference between a time when the operating vehicle C1 passes a predetermined point on the circuit 100 and a time when the following operating vehicle C2 passes the same point is the actual operation interval Dra of the operating vehicles C1 and C2).
The motivation to combine Kitamura and Higashide is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Kitamura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the outputting outputs an adjustment instruction of adjusting a moving speed to at least one of the plurality of transport vehicles to ensure the preset time difference after departure from the respective departure places.
Higashide, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the movement control unit outputs an adjustment instruction of adjusting a moving speed to at least one of the plurality of transport vehicles to ensure the time difference after departure from the departure place (see at least Figs. 1-2, 6, [0062, 0081, 0089-0090, 0092-0094] – a traveling velocity on the path which is already created is autonomously controlled to match with a target velocity V1 (to be described later) determined by the operation schedule… a target velocity V1 is also uniformly set for the vehicles C, so that operation intervals of the operating vehicles C traveling on the circuit 100 are an equal interval to each other… operation interval between operating vehicles C1 and C2… a time difference between a time when the operating vehicle C1 passes a predetermined point on the circuit 100 and a time when the following operating vehicle C2 passes the same point is the actual operation interval Dra of the operating vehicles C1 and C2).
The motivation to combine Kitamura and Higashide is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Kitamura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the outputting outputs an instruction to cause at least one intermediate transport vehicle among the plurality of transport vehicles to stand by, in accordance with the unloading process status at the destination.
Ford, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the outputting outputs an instruction to cause at least one intermediate transport vehicle among the plurality of transport vehicles to stand by, in accordance with the unloading process status at the destination (see at least [0005, 0008, 0012, 0022-0023] – transmit instructions to the delivery vehicle to proceed to a waiting area such as a parking area or temporary holding area when the unloading/loading area is occupied or otherwise unavailable… further instructions are provided to proceed to the unloading/loading area).
The motivation to combine Kitamura and Ford is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Polus, Higashide, Ford, and Elzinga (US 9,764,836 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Kitamura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the transport request instruction further includes information indicating a battery remaining amount of each of the plurality of transport vehicles, and in a case where the battery remaining amount is smaller than a battery remaining amount necessary for making a round trip between the respective departure places and the respective destinations, the assigning gives a lower priority to a transported object to be transported by the transport vehicle having the battery remaining amount smaller than the battery remaining amount necessary for making the round trip.
Polus, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: calculating a priority (see at least [0042-0047] - calculating, at 354, a priority score associated with each delivery item such that the generating the delivery itinerary at 350 includes configuring the delivery itinerary to deliver the delivery items in order of descending priority score).
The motivation to combine Kitamura and Polus is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Elzinga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the transport request instruction further includes information indicating a battery remaining amount of each of the plurality of transport vehicles, and in a case where the battery remaining amount is smaller than a battery remaining amount necessary for making a round trip between the respective departure places and the respective destinations, the assigning gives a lower priority to a transported object to be transported by the transport vehicle having the battery remaining amount smaller than the battery remaining amount necessary for making the round trip (see at least column 8, lines 30-37 and column 14, lines 14-40 - In some embodiments, the flight coordinator 502 may further determine a battery level of the UAV 506 which may optionally include a range estimate. For example, UAV 506 may report to flight coordinator 502 as follows: “Battery Level=39%; Estimated Range=7.8 miles (roundtrip).” Accordingly, the flight coordinator 502 may provide UAV 506 with an appropriate assignment for a healthy UAV with a battery level of 39% and/or estimated flight range of 7.8 miles. In some embodiments, the flight coordinator 502 may search an order database to determine whether there are any currently pending deliveries which are within the estimated flight range of 7.8 miles (optionally with an added margin of safety) and, if there are, the flight coordinator 502 may provide the UAV 506 an assignment to pick up the corresponding cargo and make the delivery. Alternatively, if there are no currently pending deliveries which are within the estimated flight range of UAV 506 (or if the battery level is below a predetermined level), the flight coordinator 502 may determine that the battery level is below a battery threshold and provide an assignment including an instruction to report to refueling station 536 for battery charging (shown with a low-charge UAV 537 therein). It should be appreciated that the battery threshold may be either static (e.g., “Battery Level=15%; Estimated Range=3.0 miles (roundtrip)”) and/or dynamic in which case the flight coordinator 502 sets the threshold based on one or more currently pending deliveries which have not already been assigned to a different UAV.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Elzinga into the invention of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to ensure that the vehicle can safely make the roundtrip according to the battery level and corresponding flight range estimate, and if so assigning the vehicle to the pending order, but otherwise assigning the pending order to a different vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the disadvantages of sending any kind of electric vehicle on a trip that it is not sufficiently charged to make. This would leave the vehicle stranded and potentially risk not completing the delivery of the object.
Regarding claim 7, Kitamura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the outputting outputs a charging instruction to a transport vehicle having the battery remaining amount smaller than the battery remaining amount necessary for making the round trip.
Elzinga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the outputting outputs a charging instruction to a transport vehicle having the battery remaining amount smaller than the battery remaining amount necessary for making the round trip (see at least column 8, lines 30-37 and column 14, lines 14-40 - If there are no currently pending deliveries which are within the estimated flight range of UAV 506 (or if the battery level is below a predetermined level), the flight coordinator 502 may determine that the battery level is below a battery threshold and provide an assignment including an instruction to report to refueling station 536 for battery charging (shown with a low-charge UAV 537 therein).).
The motivation to combine Kitamura and Elzinga is the same as in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Kitamura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the assigning gives an assignment, by excluding the transport vehicle having the battery remaining amount smaller than the battery remaining amount necessary for making the round trip.
Elzinga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the assigning gives an assignment, by excluding the transport vehicle having the battery remaining amount smaller than the battery remaining amount necessary for making the round trip (see at least column 8, lines 30-37 and column 14, lines 14-40 - UAV 506 may report to flight coordinator 502 as follows: “Battery Level=39%; Estimated Range=7.8 miles (roundtrip).” Accordingly, the flight coordinator 502 may provide UAV 506 with an appropriate assignment for a healthy UAV with a battery level of 39% and/or estimated flight range of 7.8 miles. In some embodiments, the flight coordinator 502 may search an order database to determine whether there are any currently pending deliveries which are within the estimated flight range of 7.8 miles (optionally with an added margin of safety) and, if there are, the flight coordinator 502 may provide the UAV 506 an assignment to pick up the corresponding cargo and make the delivery. Alternatively, if there are no currently pending deliveries which are within the estimated flight range of UAV 506 (or if the battery level is below a predetermined level), the flight coordinator 502 may determine that the battery level is below a battery threshold and provide an assignment including an instruction to report to refueling station 536 for battery charging (shown with a low-charge UAV 537 therein). It should be appreciated that the battery threshold may be either static (e.g., “Battery Level=15%; Estimated Range=3.0 miles (roundtrip)”) and/or dynamic in which case the flight coordinator 502 sets the threshold based on one or more currently pending deliveries which have not already been assigned to a different UAV.).
The motivation to combine Kitamura and Elzinga is the same as in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Polus, Higashide, Ford, and Lepek (US 2017/0316379 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kitamura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the transport request instruction includes further information about whether or not an equipment is needed for unloading of each of the plurality of transported objects in the respective destinations and presence or absence of the equipment capable of handling the unloading process, and the calculating calculates a higher priority, based on the presence or absence of the equipment, in a case where there are more than one transported objects for which the equipment is necessary.
Polus, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the calculating calculates a priority (see at least [0042-0047] - calculating, at 354, a priority score associated with each delivery item such that the generating the delivery itinerary at 350 includes configuring the delivery itinerary to deliver the delivery items in order of descending priority score).
The motivation to combine Kitamura and Polus is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Lepek, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the transport request instruction includes further information about whether or not an equipment is needed for unloading of each of the plurality of transported objects in the respective destinations and presence or absence of the equipment capable of handling the unloading process, and the calculating calculates a higher priority, based on the presence or absence of the equipment, in a case where there are more than one transported objects for which the equipment is necessary (see at least [0159, 0179-0180] – When a resource (e.g. a crane) is available for service, e.g. it has retrieved or is ready to retrieve a container from a docking ship, it is desired to reduce its waiting time until the vehicle arrives at a delivery bay and the crane can deliver the container onto the vehicle. It is desired to reduce or eliminate such an undue idle wait time duration (referred to herein also as starvation time of the resource) in order to improve its operational efficiency and thereby save operational costs… At the onset 601, data is extracted from the database 54 to determine, for instance, the number of resources that are required for serving a docking ship, whether containers are loaded to and/or retrieved from the ship (based on the ship characteristics, e.g. size, number of containers etc), the resource category type (e.g. crane or truck) and their priority, the resource service start time indicative of the earliest time that the resource can start and serve the ship (based on the ship planned docking time, etc.), e.g. loading a container from the ship to the vehicle or unloading a container from the vehicle to the ship.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Lepek into the invention of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to reduce the idle time of expensive resources such as cranes that are used for loading and unloading, thereby improving operational efficiency and saving operational costs (Lepek – [0002, 0159]).
Regarding claim 10, Kitamura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the transport request instruction further includes information indicating a congestion state in each of the destinations, and the calculating calculates a higher priority for a transported object to be directed to a destination indicating vacancy, based on the information.
Polus, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the calculating calculates a priority (see at least [0042-0047] - calculating, at 354, a priority score associated with each delivery item such that the generating the delivery itinerary at 350 includes configuring the delivery itinerary to deliver the delivery items in order of descending priority score).
The motivation to combine Kitamura and Polus is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Lepek, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the transport request instruction further includes information indicating a congestion state in each of the destinations, and the calculating calculates a higher priority for a transported object to be directed to a destination indicating vacancy, based on the information (see at least [0161, 0230-0231] - The calculation of the best path routes for the vehicles may take into account the state of the bay (e.g. whether vacant or occupied and for how long) as well as other parameters, all as will be discussed below.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Lepek into the invention of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to calculate the best path route for the vehicles, thereby improving operational efficiency and saving operational costs (Lepek – [0002, 0161]).
Regarding claim 11, Kitamura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein in a case where there are more than one transported objects respectively having identical priorities, the calculating calculates the higher priority for the transported object to be directed to the destination indicating the vacancy, based on the information.
Polus, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the calculating calculates a priority (see at least [0042-0047] - calculating, at 354, a priority score associated with each delivery item such that the generating the delivery itinerary at 350 includes configuring the delivery itinerary to deliver the delivery items in order of descending priority score).
The motivation to combine Kitamura and Polus is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Lepek, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein in a case where there are more than one transported objects respectively having identical priorities, the calculating calculates the higher priority for the transported object to be directed to the destination indicating the vacancy, based on the information (see at least [0161, 0230-0231] - The calculation of the best path routes for the vehicles may take into account the state of the bay (e.g. whether vacant or occupied and for how long) as well as other parameters, all as will be discussed below.).
The motivation to combine Kitamura and Lepek is the same as in the rejection of claim 10. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when priorities are otherwise identical, a higher priority would be given to the destination that is vacant (as opposed to occupied) because this would clearly provide the optimal path and the better efficiency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and doing so would yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejections 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Huang (US 2022/0155180 A1), see paragraph [0030], which is directed to a system where another transport vehicle may wait on the rail until the aforesaid transport vehicle finishes unloading or loading the objects and moves out of the way.
Ozaki (US 2008/0109127 A1), see paragraphs [0134, 0161, 0215], which is directed to a system where the unmanned vehicle may wait till the leading unmanned vehicles departs from the unloading point after performing the unloading operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights