DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 3/18/2026 have been entered. Claims 8 and 10-11 have been amended and claims 1-7, 9, and 12-14 have been cancelled. Claims 8 and 10-11 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts “Serstad does not teach, disclose or suggest setting control information to allow or prohibit stopping of an automatic traveling device in a group of tags arranged on a floor surface” in page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The tags were relied upon in Yamamoto, not Serstad. The tags taught by Yamamoto are arranged on a grid (see Yamamoto Fig. 1) which have been combined with the grid of Serstad. Serstad has been brought in to teach that along this grid, there is a dedicated grid for larger vehicles to always travel along. This teaching indicates larger vehicles are restricted from those areas outside of the dedicated large-article grid (first plurality of tags), and allow the larger vehicles to travel along the large-article grid (second plurality of tags) wherein the smaller vehicle is not restricted. Therefore, the combination of Yamamoto and Serstad read on Applicant’s limitations as claimed and Applicant’s arguments are considered not persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC §103 is therefore maintained as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the objections. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims fail to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §103 are maintained as outlined below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“generation processing circuit” in claims 1 and 8. Applicant’s specification discloses “the controller 11 includes various processing units such as… a generation processing unit 113… controller 11 functions as the various processing units by causing the CPU to execute various processes in accordance with the traveling program. Further, some or all of the processing units may be constituted by electronic circuits…” in paragraph [0068].
“setting processing circuit” in claims 1 and 8. Applicant’s specification discloses “the controller 11 includes various processing units such as… a setting processing unit 112… controller 11 functions as the various processing units by causing the CPU to execute various processes in accordance with the traveling program. Further, some or all of the processing units may be constituted by electronic circuits…” in paragraph [0068].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0271261 A1; hereinafter Yamamoto) in view of Serstad et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0166442 A1; hereinafter Serstad).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto discloses:
A traveling system that causes each of a plurality of automatic traveling devices to travel (working vehicle system 1 is a system for managing working vehicles 5 moving in working area LA, see at least [0034]) based on a detection result obtained by detecting a plurality of tags arranged on a floor surface (magnetic markers with wireless tags, see at least [0011] and [0045]; magnetic markers 10 arranged at grid points, see at least [0039] and Figs. 1 and 5), the traveling system comprising:
a generation processing circuit that generates a sectional traveling route that has a predetermined length and forms a part of a traveling route from a current position to a destination position of the automatic traveling device (working vehicle 5 moves along a route going from a starting point to a first point, second point, third point, and fifth point which is a destination, see at least [0123] and Fig. 13; calculate a route to a destination, see at least [0086]) *Examiner sets forth that each section from one point to the next is a predetermined length (grid size)
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose:
such that the sectional traveling route of the automatic traveling device does not overlap with a sectional traveling route set for another automatic traveling device; and a setting processing circuit that sets, for each of the plurality of tags, control information indicating whether to allow or prohibit stopping of the automatic traveling device at the tag, in accordance with an outer size of the automatic traveling device, such that an interval between the tags, at which an automatic traveling device having a first outer size is stoppable, is wider than an interval between the tags, at which an automatic traveling device having a second outer size smaller than the first outer size is stoppable,
sets the control information to allow stopping of the automatic traveling device having the second outer size and to prohibit stopping of the automatic traveling device having the first outer size in a first group of tags among the plurality of tags, and sets the control information to allow stopping of the automatic traveling device having the second outer size and to allow stopping of the automatic traveling device having the first outer size in a second group of tags among the plurality of tags.
However, Serstad teaches:
such that the sectional traveling route of the automatic traveling device does not overlap with a sectional traveling route set for another automatic traveling device (advanced navigation and collision avoidance algorithm applies a navigation algorithm that keeps track of all grid cells occupied by the large transport vehicle such that no collisions or unintended contacts occur, see at least [0015] and [0017]); and
a setting processing circuit that sets, for each of the plurality of tags, control information indicating whether to allow or prohibit stopping of the automatic traveling device at the tag (grid cells to be occupied by an automated transport vehicle are cleared to prevent collision, see at least [0018]) *Examiner sets forth that for the automated transport vehicle that is travelling, those nodes or grid cells allow stopping/occupying the space while the other vehicles are prohibited from stopping at those grid cells, in accordance with an outer size of the automatic traveling device, such that an interval between the tags, at which an automatic traveling device having a first outer size is stoppable, is wider than an interval between the tags, at which an automatic traveling device having a second outer size smaller than the first outer size is stoppable (large automated transport vehicles occupy multiple grid cells at any given time while smaller vehicles 308 occupy only two cells, see at least [0017], [0032], and Fig. 4),
sets the control information to allow stopping of the automatic traveling device having the second outer size and to prohibit stopping of the automatic traveling device having the first outer size in a first group of tags among the plurality of tags, and sets the control information to allow stopping of the automatic traveling device having the second outer size and to allow stopping of the automatic traveling device having the first outer size in a second group of tags among the plurality of tags (larger vehicles travel along a dedicated large-article grid as determined by the server, see at least [0032]) *Examiner sets forth this indicates that the large vehicles are only able to occupy the large-article grids while the smaller vehicles roam along the entirety of the grid
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle navigation management system disclosed by Yamamoto by adding the collision avoidance and dedicated grid space based on size of vehicle taught by Serstad with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to prevent collision or contact between the automated transport vehicles” (see [0018]) and “to reduce the chance of the larger automated transport vehicles (or the large articles carried thereon) from colliding with the regular automated transport vehicles (or the regular articles carried thereon)” (see [0032])
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yamamoto and Serstad teaches the elements above but Yamamoto does not disclose:
the setting processing circuit sets the control information such that an interval between the tags, at which the automatic traveling device is stoppable, is wider than a reference value larger than the outer size of the automatic traveling device
However, Serstad teaches:
the setting processing circuit sets the control information such that an interval between the tags, at which the automatic traveling device is stoppable, is wider than a reference value larger than the outer size of the automatic traveling device (grid is modified to offer wide lanes for vehicles moving large articles, see at least [0030] and reference 304 for vehicle 306 on Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle navigation management system disclosed by Yamamoto by adding the collision avoidance based on size of vehicle taught by Serstad with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to leave a wide berth of clearance to the large article automated transport vehicle” (see [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yamamoto and Serstad teaches the elements above but Yamamoto does not disclose:
the setting processing circuit sets the control information such that an interval between the tags, at which the automatic traveling device is stoppable, becomes wider as the outer size of the automatic traveling device becomes larger.
However, Serstad teaches:
the setting processing circuit sets the control information such that an interval between the tags, at which the automatic traveling device is stoppable, becomes wider as the outer size of the automatic traveling device becomes larger (large automated transport vehicles occupy multiple grid cells at any given time, see at least [0017], [0032], and Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle navigation management system disclosed by Yamamoto by adding the collision avoidance based on size of vehicle taught by Serstad with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide for an automated transport vehicle navigation controller with associated software that operates to plan travel paths for each of the different sized automated transport vehicles such that no two automated transport vehicles or portions thereof occupy the same grid cell at the same time” (see [0015]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights