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 .
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a traveling program” which under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be interpreted as software per se. Moreover, software per se has been held to be non-statutory subject matter (MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claim 10 is directed to a method for controlling travel and claims 1-9 are directed to a system comprising a processor with the related method steps. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of controlling a mobile device. Specifically, the claims recite the steps of---acquiring storage position designation tag status and mobile device information; determining whether the mobile device is capable of traveling through the position corresponding to the storage position; and generating a travel route for the mobile device on the basis of a determination result--which are grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)) because the steps of acquiring information such as the location of a mobile device and the status of a specific transport cell and then determining whether said mobile device can travel through said transport can all be regarded as mental process steps. Indeed, these steps can be regarded as basic observation, evaluation and judgment steps performed by the human mind as a person can easily evaluate a storage area and make a judgment on whether a mobile device and related storage items can pass therethrough -- See e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III (describing a “mental process” as “thinking” that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” and include “observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions”).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional elements of the claims, such as processors of the system claims, merely use a computer element as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the processors simply perform the steps of acquiring information and generating a travel route as discussed above. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using processors to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 further describe the abstract idea by including more information acquiring and evaluation steps. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
For these reasons, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the language appears conflicting and thus non-sensical. For example, claim 8 describes that “the automatic traveling device is transporting the transport target” even though the transport target is arranged at the storage position and the automatic traveling device is not at the storage position. This claim is regarded as unexaminable as it is unclear what Applicant is attempting to define.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mountz et al. (“Mountz”)(WO 2007/149196).
Mountz teaches a traveling system comprising:
(re: claim 1) one or more processors that control traveling of an automatic traveling device that travels while sequentially detecting a plurality of tags arranged on a floor surface and is capable of transporting, to a designated position, a transport target stored at a position corresponding to a storage position designation tag that is part of the plurality of tags (fig. 2 near 90 and p. 15-17 and 20 teaching processing elements configured to optimize routing of automatic traveling devices, i.e., mobile units, and movement of transport targets throughout two-dimensional workspace grid shown in fig. 7 when performing inventory tasks; p. 10-11 teaching that inventory tasks may include retrieval and storage steps that include location of storage unit to be retrieved and inventory station to be visited, wherein task completion includes mobile unit docking with transport targets/inventory holders; p. 18, ln. 30-p. 19, ln. 9 teaching position sensor 140 configured to detect fiducial marks, i.e., tags, located throughout two-dimensional grid, e.g., at target storage position, wherein control module 170 maintains location of a mobile unit based on said sensor readings and stored tag locations);
wherein the one or more processors
acquire storage position designation tag status information including information indicating whether the transport target is present at the position corresponding to the storage position designation tag, and information indicating whether the automatic traveling device is present at the position corresponding to the storage position designation tag (p. 18, ln. 30-p. 19, ln. 15 and p. 44, ln. 24-32 teaching continuously acquiring/updating location and task completion status of mobile unit and use of mobile unit sensor 150 to detect and verify target transport unit identity and location, thus it is inherent that task completion and location status includes verifying transport target position and mobile unit has reached said position when performing an inventory task that includes retrieval of a storage unit/transport target from a storage location and transport of said target to an inventory station 50);
acquire automatic traveling device status information indicating whether the automatic traveling device is transporting the transport target (p. 39, ln. 18-p. 31, ln. 30 teaching monitoring status of mobile units, e.g., task completion and charge status, to optimize inventory task planning; see also p. 18, ln. 30-p. 19, ln. 15 teaching continuously acquiring/updating location of mobile unit),
determine whether the automatic traveling device is capable of traveling through the position corresponding to the storage position designation tag on the basis of the storage position designation tag status information and the automatic traveling device status information (fig. 7 showing route planning via 16a or 16b to 14b and fig. 8 showing planning steps; see generally p. 38, ln. 3-p. 44, ln. 25 teaching optimization of mobile unit traveling path based on status of mobile unit, e.g., mobile unit is prohibited from traveling underneath transport units as shown in path 16b if attached to a transport unit or if another mobile unit or stored transport unit is within path 16b), and
generate a travel route of the automatic traveling device on the basis of a determination result (Id. wherein Examiner regards inventory task as retrieval of target/storage unit and delivering of said unit to an inventory station, thus generating a travel route includes acquiring mobile unit status and determination of whether mobile unit is capable of traveling through the storage position);
(re: claim 2) wherein the one or more processors
register the storage position designation tag status information in association with identification information of the tag (p. 43-44 teaching route planning that involves registering storage position status associated with a tag, e.g., storage or non-storage cell attribute as well as status of mobile unit), and
register the automatic traveling device status information in association with identification information of the automatic traveling device (Id);
(re: claim 3) wherein a plurality of the storage position designation tags are arranged, one for each storage position of the transport target, and the one or more processors acquire the storage position designation tag status information corresponding to each of the plurality of storage position designation tags (p. 43-44 teaching route planning that involves acquiring attributes of multiple cells, e.g., whether a cells is a non-storage cell or is merely contains a transport/storage unit undocked from a mobile unit that would allow mobile unit travel therethrough);
(re: claim 4) wherein the one or more processors
set the storage position designation tag as a travelable tag through which the automatic traveling device can pass or as a non-travelable tag through which the automatic traveling device cannot pass, on the basis of the automatic traveling device status information and the storage position designation tag status information, and generate the travel route including the travelable tag and not including the non-travelable tag (p. 43-44 teaching route planning that involves registering storage position status associated with a tag, e.g., storage or non-storage cell attribute and mobile unit relation, wherein said position status indicates whether said position is travelable, i.e. whether a mobile unit can pass therethrough);
(re: claim 5) wherein, when the transport target is not arranged at the position corresponding to the storage position designation tag and the automatic traveling device is not present at the position corresponding to the storage position designation tag,
the one or more processors set the storage position designation tag as the travelable tag (fig. 7 showing cells in grid wherein each cell is regarded as having a fiducial mark/tag associated with a travelable status-i.e., i.e. whether a mobile unit can pass through the cell; p. 43-44 teaching route planning that involves determining whether a tag/cell is travelable and that path 16a defines travelable cells as no transport target/storage unit or mobile units are positioned on said travelable cells);
(re: claim 6) wherein, when the transport target is not arranged at the position corresponding to the storage position designation tag and the automatic traveling device is present at the position corresponding to the storage position designation tag,
the one or more processors set the storage position designation tag as the travelable tag (Id. wherein any cell that does not contain a transport unit/transport target—is set travelable—regardless of the position of the mobile unit and fig. 7 showing that paths 16a, 16b with mobile unit are defined as travelable cells);
(re: claim 7) wherein, when the transport target is arranged at the position corresponding to the storage position designation tag and the automatic traveling device is not present at the position corresponding to the storage position designation tag and the automatic traveling device is not transporting the transport target,
the one or more processors set the storage position designation tag as the travelable tag (Id. teaching that a cell that contains a transport unit is set to travelable when a specific mobile unit status is achieved, e.g., when a mobile unit is not docked with a storage/transport unit, as said mobile unit can tunnel through the storage units to traverse the cells);
(re: claim 9) wherein, when the transport target is arranged at the position corresponding to the storage position designation tag and the automatic traveling device is present at the position corresponding to the storage position designation tag,
the one or more processors set the storage position designation tag as the travelable tag (Id. teaching that a cell that contains a transport unit is set to travelable when a specific mobile unit status is achieved, e.g., when a mobile unit is docked with the target transport unit and completing an inventory management task as shown in path 16a).
(re: claims 10-11) The traveling methods and related program steps are performed in the normal operation of the system cited above (see also p. 15 teaching processor element configured with instructions to execute inventory management task).
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
June 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights